AG strikes back

IF THE UNC thought that they had struck a "passing shot" at the Attorney General in the FW Oil bribery scandal, Mrs Glenda Morean-Phillip, a former tennis champion, proved she was able enough to slam it back into the Opposition's court. In Parliament yesterday the AG met charges that she had lied about a former UNC minister soliciting a bribe — she termed it "an improper consideration" — from the Texas oil company by revealing that she had four cheques, amounting to TT $800,000, which had been paid into a Jersey bank account in the name of a UNC minister and his wife.

"This is not a question of lying," the AG declared, "this is the case of government ensuring that corruption is rooted out of this country. As a Government committed to transparency and accountability, we could not sit idly by and allow these allegations to remain on the record." Mrs Morean-Phillip's revelations in Parliament yesterday create an even nastier picture than what has been disclosed so far about this unsavoury affair. The impression had been that a former UNC minister had asked FW Oil for a bribe in order to influence the award of a contract to develop the South West Soldado oilfield. Now the AG tells us that, in fact, a large sum of money in the form of four cheques — two for US $50,000 and two for US $20,000 and $10,000 respectively - has actually been paid as a result of the request for what she continued to describe as an "improper consideration."

The Attorney General was accused of lying by the UNC opposition, following a denial by the Texas oil company that it had been approached for a bribe by a minister of government in 2002. It would now be interesting to hear what FWO would have to say in light of the cheques, which are now in the AG's possession. Indeed, Mrs Morean-Phillip's statement yesterday and the documents, which she released to the media on Saturday combine to reveal a sickening level of greed both within the UNC government and among officials at Petrotrin with respect to the award of the Soldado oilfield contract. She added in Parliament: "While it is true that we have been at pains to deal with the matter in a certain way, we have to say that it is not just one minister we are talking about here."

Excerpts of FWO's Summary of Dispute tell of certain TT officials demanding a US $1.5 million bribe and threatening to block FWO's proposals unless the bribe was paid. The company added that the officials "later caused a fax to be sent to FWO listing a Cayman Island bank account and demanding that US $200,000 be deposited into the account as the first payment on a bribe. FWO again refused." The AG read from an FWO affidavit filed in the lawsuit which relates that Junior Energy Minister William (Bill) Chaitan had, without Board approval, inserted in a letter from Trinmar to the company a final paragraph withdrawing the contract award to the Texas oil company. The affidavit stated: "Chaitan held an interest in a Canadian energy company that was a potential bidder for the Soldado Fields Project. It was thought that Chaitan was trying to 'guide' the project to that company."

We find all this, of course, most depressing. That not only government ministers but also officials of Petrotrin could be accused of that kind of venality, of using their positions to exact bribes from a foreign oil company bidding for a local contract or to privately corrupt the award process for selfish gain, is quite demoralising. The AG has assured the country that investigations into this scandal and the InnCogen are continuing. But when will these matters be satisfactorily concluded? Criminal activity in high places is just as repugnant as kidnappings and assassinations.