NH International walks out of hospital inquiry

After returning from a short break during the afternoon sitting of the commission, attorney Jason Mootoo "regrettably" informed commissioners Annestine Sealey, Dr Chandrabhan Sharma and Eustace Hobson that NHIC could no longer participate in the inquiry.

From the outset of the hearings, according to Mootoo, his client had been willing to render any assistance the commission needed. He said witnesses who had not even been summoned came willingly to give evidence.

He reminded the commission that even at the start of the inquiry he had complained that certain rights of his client, relative to the disclosure of statements, were not being observed. Mootoo added that his client had not been the recipient of the "quality treatment" that other parties involved in the inquiry had received, and that other witnesses had not undergone the type of interrogation that NHIC’s witnesses had been subjected to.

He said he was dissatisfied with some of the comments made to him by the commission, and its (the commission) rejection of requests he had made that he felt were valid.

Prior to the break, Mootoo had sought the commission’s permission to cross-examine witness Simon Ragbir on the issue of employees’ taxes, raised by attorney Robin Montano during his (Montano’s) cross-examination of the witness.

Ragbir, who said he was the sub-contractor responsible for labour at the Landate site, said while he received a lumpsum cheque to pay the labourers, he was not responsible for their NIS and tax payments.

Sealey refused Mootoo’s request and the attorney then requested the break to "get instructions" from NHIC Managing Director, John Conon, who was scheduled to give evidence next. When he returned to the courtroom about 15 minutes later, Mootoo informed the commission of his client’s decision, packed up his documents and left.

Even before Mootoo was out the door, however, Sealey was bombarded by another accusation of unfair treatment — this time by Margaret Rose, attorney for Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley.

Referring to the schedule of next week’s sitting she had earlier received from the commission , Rose complained that the contents of the document totally disregarded the issue of Rowley’s appearance to give evidence before the commission on August 3, and that of the commission hearing the evidence of another witness, James Duffy.

According to the schedule, attorneys were expected to make closing submissions on August 2, 3 and 4.

Rose argued that Rowley had been served with a notice of prejudice stating that he "will" be summoned to give evidence and, although he had "maintained a dignified silence," he "welcomed enthusiastically any and every commission of inquiry" in which his evidence could be heard.

Regarding Duffy’s evidence, Rose said it was "pivotal and material" to the allegations of impropriety made against Rowley, because it contradicted the evidence of Reverend Barrington "Skippy" Thomas. Duffy should therefore be "compelled" to appear before the commission, Rose said. According to Rose, Thomas had been allowed to come to "this public inquiry" and make "scandalous, outrageous and treacherous" allegations against her client and other people, adding that the commission appeared to not want to hear the evidence of Rowley and Duffy.

Duffy, Sealey said, was not in Trinidad and Tobago and the commission had no authority to "compel" a witness who was out of the jurisdiction. Lead attorney for the commission, Trevor Lee SC, then pointed out that Duffy could only be brought as an NHIC witness, and Rose should "let it rest" because NHIC had, moments earlier, withdrawn from the inquiry.