“Dhanraj Singh told me he wanted Hansraj dead,” star witness Elliott Hypolite told the judge and jury yesterday in the San Fernando First Criminal Court.

During Hypolite’s evidence in chief, the court also heard of three guns, first shown to him by Dhanraj; a sum of $500,000 which Dhanraj found was “too high”; the shooting to death of Hansraj Sumairsingh at his Mayaro beach house, and the immunity from prosecution which was granted to Hypolite by the then DPP, Mark Mohammed. These were among the highlights presented to the jury yesterday at an all-day hearing most of which was taken up by Hypolite’s evidence. Former Local Government minister, Dhanraj Singh, is accused of the shooting to death of Hansraj Sumairsingh, former chairman of the Mayaro/Rio Claro Regional Corporation, on December 31, 1999. The State is alleging that Dhanraj did not actually do the killing, but had ordered it.

On the resumption yesterday, the complainant, Sgt Fitzgerald George returned to the witness stand to continue his cross-examination by lead defence counsel, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC. Dealing with the immunity granted Hypolite Hudson-Phillips asked that it be read — back and front — to the court. The clerk read it. George was questioned at length about the immunity document and the conditions to which Hypolite was subjected, among them being to give evidence in accordance with the statutory declaration; that he not leave Trinidad and Tobago, and that he be subjected to arrangements for his protection. One of the conditions was that the immunity would be withdrawn if Hypolite was found to have breached any of the laid down conditions. A copy of the immunity asked for by Hudson-Phillips was subsequently tendered in evidence and marked FG 13.

Witness said the document spoke of a statutory declaration being made but he did not have the declaration. The original was put in at the magistrate’s court, but not through him, although he was the complainant in the matter. Hypolite then was on a murder charge. Witness said if he saw a copy of the statutory declaration he would recognise it. A copy was produced and he recognised it.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The reason for having a statutory declaration from Hypolite was to ensure he spoke the truth?
GEORGE: To ensure what he said was true.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The form of this statutory declaration, apart from the name and addresses was identical to the one from Fazal Ali? —I will have to check sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Just check. You have it? —Yes.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: May I have a look at it please Mr George.
The document was handed over, and was subsequently discovered to be the document for which the State had been looking.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: In the statement from Fazal Ali, this statement attributed to Hypolite, is not the same as the statement he gave ? —Yes sir.

After further cross-examination, Hudson-Phillips told the witness: “Now we have two things listed. The first is having charged Hypolite on the basis of Fazal Ali’s statement, then we had a situation where Hypolite gives a statement with a statutory declaration totally inconsistent with statements attributed to him by Fazal Ali, and both of them are being relied on as being true because of the statutory declaration. Lead Prosecution counsel, Sir Timothy Cassel indicated to the court that if Fazal Ali is to be called as a witness by the defence, the State would try its best to get him, although he could give no guarantee. During his cross-examination Hudson-Phillips accused the prosecution of being highly motivated by the police. He said his line of cross-examination did indicate that both Ali and Hypolite could not be speaking the truth; when it suited them they abandoned Ali and charged Hypolite. “Clearly,” said Hudson-Phillips, “one is entitled to test the whole basis of this prosecution.” Hudson-Phillips said he was targetting the motive of the prosecution. “That is what I am doing,” he added. “And he is the only police officer here who knows about this thing half way. This officer just seems to have been handed the matter.”

CASSEL: If that is so he should put this question of bias to the witness and he will answer.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS continuing his cross-examination of the witness: So when you have Ali’s statement you charge Hypolite, and when you get Hypolite’s statement you charged this accused?
JUSTICE BAIRD: Proceed. The situation has been addressed; you can proceed.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: This is what worried me, all last night. Do you understand what I’m saying Mr George?
JUDGE: You mean about last night? (The entire court erupted into laughter).
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: That Ali’s statement lick up Hypolite. You start to prosecute Hypolite. Lo and behold police officers go into the jail with a brother of a member of parliament, and you now get a statement from Hypolite, and it would appear that what Ali was saying was not true at all. I will have a lot to say about this. But I am not blaming you at all Mr George because you do not have the karchant (a Hindu word). Do you agree where I am coming from ?
GEORGE: Yes sir.
Hudson-Phillips suggested that “the thing smells” to which the George responded “no sir.”
George went on to state that between February 16 and 22, he spoke to Ali about certain names in the declaration, and Ali gave him an explanation why he had called those names.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So that is why you went back and took a statutory declaration from Hypolite?
GEORGE: That was part of the reason.

Continuing George said he had no evidence to charge anyone with larceny of a car, although it was taken from the possession of somebody. He recalled that on the morning of Dhanraj’s arrest he was present, as well as several other police officers. It was around 6.20 am. From his home where he was arrested the accused was taken to Police Headquarters in Port of Spain. He was taken to the first floor and placed in an open office. He was charged with the offence later that day — sometime towards evening. Witness said he was awaiting instructions.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Were you present on the first day he was brought to the magistrates’ court? —No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: I understand you were in court? —No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The substance of that is that police officers during the day, while you were awaiting instructions, were telling him certain things, were you aware of that? —I don’t know that.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: And what was said was, the police were telling him “don’t go down by yourself boy. Spill the beans on the others and we will give you immunity.”
GEORGE: I do not know about that sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Do you know an officer called Hernandez, you saw him there that day? —Yes sir.
George said Hernandez was not guarding Dhanraj, but was on duty at the office which was in close proximity.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You know Mr George the accused is not making any allegations against you, I want to make that clear. But you will know that attempts were being made to get at this accused. He was being told that if he spilled the beans on corruption in the Government he would not be charged. I am putting it to you that you well know that?
GEORGE: No sir, I don’t know that.
George also denied that he was in court the first day the accused was taken to court. He said arrangements were made to have the accused taken to court by vehicle. He explained that at the time the accused was being taken to the magistrates’ court he, George, was in the High Court giving evidence in another matter.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: I understand the arrangement you made was for him to be taken to the court in a vehicle?
GEORGE: I do not know how he was taken to court.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The first morning of the hearing in Port of Spain he was taken in a vehicle to the court. He was accompanied by PC Hernandez and PC Telesford. Are you aware that the vehicle in which Dhanraj Singh was being taken to court stopped at the corner of Knox Street and St Vincent Street? —I do not know how he was taken to court sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: That he was taken out of the vehicle and marched from the street corner to the court in front of the Press? —I was not present at the time.
And he was being asked to make a statement to the Press to say that he was not taking it alone, and he was not going down alone ? —I am not aware of that, sir.
Following a short morning break, Sgt George was then re-examined by Cassel. George explained that he had to await the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions before charging Singh.
CASSEL: It has been suggested to you that this is a police conspiracy based on bias, you appreciate that is what was being said? —Yes sir.
CASSEL: Do you know of any bias in the Police? —No sir.
CASSEL: Answer this question, yes or no; did you ask him certain questions about that statement, yes or no? —Yes sir.
George was subsequently released at 10.40 am after which the Prosecution called its star witness —Elliott Hypolite, also called Abdullah.
Elliott Hypolite, the State’s star witness told the court his religion was Islam. His other name was Abdullah.
Examined by Lead Counsel for the Prosecution, Sir Timothy Cassel QC, who first asked him: “Were you present at the time Mr Sumairsingh was killed?
HYPOLITE: Yes sir.
CASSEL: You were charged at one time with this murder? — Yes sir.
CASSEL: The proceedings were discontinued against you by the DPP? — Yes sir.
CASSEL: And were you furnished with an immunity from prosecution subject to certain conditions? — Yes sir.
After identifying the immunity document, Hypolite went on to tell the court he knows the accused Dhanraj Singh. He first met him in September, 1999. He was doing some welding work, getting some burglar-proofing in place at Singh’s office in Tunapuna.
The first time they met they introduced themselves. Dhanraj enquired of him if he was a good man. “He asked me if I was a good man for a job. I told him I’m a good man because I was making him safe by installing the burglar proofing in his office. He told me he was not referring to the burglar-proofing.”
Dhanraj Singh he said, told me him he had a job for him. He asked him what kind of a job and he told him a job to deal with a man.
HYPOLITE: Before he told me that, he told me he had asked others to do the same job for him. Dhanraj did not mention the identities of the men. It was around the middle of September.
He told me had other men to do the job for him, but they were jokey men.
CASSEL: Who had hired you in the first place?
HYPOLITE: A man called Khalil Saif, also known as Carl Simon, the Programme Manager of the URP in Macoya. I had done work before in the URP.
HYPOLITE said he knew Saif pretty well. The time lapse between the first and second conversation with the accused, was very brief.
Hypolite said the second conversation took place at the Rum Bond, not at the Tunapuna office.
CASSEL: How did you come to be at the Rum Bond?
HYPOLITE: I was invited there by other people in the URP for a sod-turning ceremony on the Eastern Main Road, near the Laventille school. I was invited by Saif who employed me.
At the Rum Bond there was a lot of Government officials. The accused Dhanraj Singh was also there. He spoke to a lot of people, including myself and Steve Cummings, also known as Chen. I had met Chen before the sod-turning ceremony. I knew him around, but not well.
Dhanraj Singh spoke to Chen first and then to both of us. When he spoke to both of us he asked me if I am ready to do the job he spoke to me about. Cummings pulled me aside and I had a conversation with him.
As a result of the conversation I knew what the job was about. Having spoken to Chen separately Hypolite said he had a conversation with Dhanraj Singh and Chen together. I asked Dhanraj Singh of the job he really wanted done. Dhanraj Singh told me he wanted Hansraj dead. I did not know who he meant by Hansraj. He left and I left and I told him he would have to give me some money. He told me to come home at his house in Williamsville to collect the money. He told me he would like the job to go down when he is out of the country. At that stage I did not know who Hansraj was. He told me he would be leaving the country in a few days and he would like the job to go down then.
He told me to come for the money, but I had never been to his home before. I found out from Chen and other brothers where Dhanraj was living.
Having found out the address I visited his home. It was sometime in December, 1999. I went to his home in Hardbargain, Williamsville.
Some time had passed before I visited his home in the morning towards midday. He was not expecting me.
When I arrived I spoke to two security guards. They asked who I was, I told them and one of the guards went and called him. He told me to come in. I had to go through his garage, kitchen and living room and went to an office at the back of his house. Once I got in there he offered me a seat. We talked about work to be done at the Rum Bond, and then we spoke about Mr Sumairsingh. Even at that stage I did not know who was Hansraj Sumairsingh. The conversation continued and he told me he would get me some jobs at the Rum Bond. He again told me he wanted Hansraj Sumairsingh dead. At that time I still did not know who was Hansraj Sumairsingh. It was the first time he had mentioned the name Sumairsingh to me. He told me he wanted us to kill Mr Sumairsingh. He then told me who was Mr Sumairsingh. I asked who he was and he told me Sumairsingh was the chairman of the Mayaro/Rio claro Regional Corporation.
He told me of Sumairsingh’s physical description and the address of his home. The address he told me was 100 Tabaquite Road, Mayaro, or that I could also meet him at the Corporation’s office.
After he described Mr Sumairsingh I asked him how much he would pay for the job. The accused told me Chen wanted $500,000. He said he found it was too much. He then went into a drawer in his desk and gave me $2,000 in cash.
After that we had other small talk pertaining to ourselves. I proceeded to leave when he showed me three guns in an office bag.
Witness said he was familiar with guns. He told the court he saw two 9 mm pistols and a .38 revolver.
He told me when I locate Mr Sumairsingh he will give the guns to Chen. Before he told me Chen would get the guns, he told me that Chen and one of his men had gone and given Sumairsingh a jokey warning.
I was about to leave just after he showed me the guns, he then told me that if I play games with him he has more than this to deal with us.
At some stage later, I met with Chen, but in a phone conversation. Afterwards I went to Mr Sumairsingh’s home on my own. I went to locate Mr Sumairsingh on the information I had from Dhanraj Singh. I found the house at 100 Tabaquite Road. I did not see Mr Sumairsingh on that visit. Neither did I see any member of his family. It was about the middle of December. After having identified the house I returned to my home in Chaguanas. The next thing happened was when I and Chen and another man went back there after Christmas. It was shortly after Christmas. I met Chen and this other man in Chaguanas at the KFC restaurant. This other man was short, about five feet four of African descent. I never got to know his name.
The man drove the car and Chen and I were passengers in the Mazda 323 sports car. I did not know who owned it.
We left Chaguanas just after 5 pm. The drive was about two hours. When we arrived I showed Chen Sumairsingh’s house. Chen got out and spoke to someone at the house. He spoke to a young lady. She was in the gallery of the house. I could not hear what was being said. Chen got out of the car and went into the yard of the house to speak to the young lady.
When he returned to the car we left the front of the house and stayed in the area. We stayed until Mr Sumairsingh’s vehicle came into the yard. Chen came out again and proceeded to call Mr Sumairsingh, who was about to climb the stairs; he began to walk quickly when Chen called him. Chen was then actually in the yard when Mr Sumairsingh went into the house when he saw Chen. I saw Mr Sumairsingh and his wife go into the house. I called back Chen. We had guns with us. When Chen called Mr Sumairsingh he, Chen had a gun. I also had a gun at that stage. I do not know if the driver had a gun. I had a 9 mm automatic pistol. Chen had a .38 revolver. I had seen these guns before at the house of the accused, Dhanraj Singh. Chen gave me the 9 mm gun.
After Mr Sumairsingh went into the house we left immediately. We returned to Chaguanas and I went home. I gave the gun back to Chen.
On the following day I went to the URP office in Port of Spain, opposite the Port of Spain market. I did not make any appointment with anyone. When I got there I saw Steve Cummings there. Steve had something to do with the URP. I spoke to Steve Cummings. After speaking to him I left the URP office and went to the accused office in Tunapuna. I went alone. I saw the accused Dhanraj Singh. I spoke to him and he spoke to me I was alone at the time. When I reached the office the accused was mad. He had a very serious face. He told me “you boys really soft.” he slammed his hand on the desk.”All yuh really soft and is jokey bad boys.” He went on to say we missed Mr Sumairsingh the night.
He was mad and told me he was going to fix it right this time. I asked him what he meant by that. He said then he would call Mr Sumairsingh. I asked him how he was going to do that. He said he would call the man and arrange for him to be at his, Sumairsingh’s beach house in Mayaro. It was the first time I had heard of Mr Sumairsingh’s beach house. I do know Eccles Road, Mayaro.
The accused said he was going to arrange for Mr Sumairsingh to go to the beach house and we would go there and meet him, Sumairsingh, and carry out the instructions of the accused.
The accused told me he would contact Chen when he had arranged that Sumairsingh visit his beach house. Dhanraj Singh gave me an address and described him, the beach house and its location. He said it was a downstairs house and next to it was an empty piece of land. I was able to recognise the house by the description.
He told us “do not miss this time.”  Accused said after he arranged the visit he would let Chen know and Chen would tell me.
I returned home and at some time later on Chen contacted me on the eve of Old Year’s December, 1999. It was a Thursday, just coming towards the afternoon. Chen contacted me by cellphone. I went and met Chen at the same place in Chaguanas again. The same unknown man was with him and it was the same red 323 Mazda vehicle. The three of us went into the KFC in Chaguanas. We did not stay long, then we proceeded to go to Eccles Road. We arrived there about 6 pm. We found the house and Mr Sumairsingh had a lot of guests; there were a few cars in the yard. We turned our car and proceeded to head back out. We stayed on the Rio Claro road, and remained there for about 45 minutes to one hour.
After that time was up we went back to the address to Mr Sumairsingh’s home; when we got to his house, the people had left; there was no one in the yard. We turned our car. I put on a black sweater; I then band my face with a handkerchief. Chen had a hat which transformed into a mask.
At the meeting in Chaguanas I had my gun. It was the same gun I had previously. It was loaded. Chen had a gun, the .38 revolver, the same as before. We proceeded to enter the beach house yard. Chen was in front of me. Lights were on in the house. The two doors downstairs were open. Chen crossed the first entrance and I stood at the second entrance. There are two separate doors on the outside. I was at the first entrance, and Chen at the second entrance. Chen put his fingers to his lips as if he had seen somebody. Then I heard two loud explosions. He ran to me and said let’s go. These doors were on the ground floor. I went into the house because I saw a cellphone on the table. I came out of the house and came to where Chen was standing. I had taken up the cellphone before the two explosions. Chen was standing in front of me; yes, he had his gun at the time. His gun was pointing into the house. I did not see anybody in the house.
I stood there for a short while, saw the phone, took it up, went to where Chen was standing and returned to the car. I did not see at any stage the person Chen was firing at. When I went to the car Chen was already in the car. We started to drive, and on our way out we eventually reached the Ortoire river bridge. We stopped the car; Chen came out. He took out the empty shells from the revolver and threw the shells into the river.
CASSEL: Why had you taken the cellphone?
HYPOLITE: Just that Mrs Sumairsingh may be in the house and would call the police. I threw the cellphone into the river, supposedly in the water.
Hypolite was shown the cellphone and he recognised it. He could not say how the house came to be locked the following day. After throwing the cellphone they proceeded on the way to Enterprise, Chaguanas. I got back to Chaguanas just after 10 pm. I don’t know if Chen contacted anybody that evening, but I did not. On reaching Enterprise I asked Chen to allow me to keep the gun, but I had to give it back to him. He also kept his gun. I heard Sumairsingh was killed on the news.
After the incident took place I was interviewed by the police. Afterwards I went to look for the accused to ask him for the rest of the money for the job.
It was early 2000 that I next saw Dhanraj Singh. It was sometime after January. I saw him at Kent House in Maraval. Kent House is where his office is situated. It was an arranged meeting with me and Chen at Kent House. We spoke to Dhanraj Singh. We told him we need our money, and he told us “to let things cool down a bit.”
CASSEL: Did you all come to an arrangement as to how much you were to receive?
HYPOLITE: We were to receive $500,000. He and Chen had agreed on that.
I then left the country in March, 2000, and I returned in September, 2000. After that in early October I went to the accused house again. When I turned up, I was again admitted by the guards. I did not enter into the house. When Dhanraj Singh came out he was surprised to see me there. He told me he was surprised I was back in the country. He told me he wanted me to leave quickly. I asked him about the money he promised to pay for the killing of Sumairsingh. He told me to wait for him at his office in Marabella; he would be coming in awhile. He came the same day to the Marabella office. I had a conversation with him. I saw Dhanraj Singh alone. Again he said he was surprised to see me back in the country. I told him I came to collect my money. I told him my name was calling a lot, and he told me his name was being called too. He gave me $5,000. I told him this was not enough. He said people were watching him. When he gave me the $5,000 he told me ‘I did not tell you all to do anything eh.’
At that time I forgot about the balance, I told him to give me $60,000 so I could leave the country. I went back to his Marabella office but he never showed.
Hypolite said he was subsequently arrested. After the proceedings began at the magistrates’ court they were discontinued and he was granted an immunity.
Having got the immunity he was effectively under police protection.

The court then took the 45-minute lunchbreak. On resumption after lunch defence counsel, Karl Hudson-Phillips began his cross-examination of Hypolite. Hudson-Phillips indicated to the court that he would not be able to complete his cross-examination before the trial judge gives his ruling on the legal applications made the previous day. Cassel also indicated that if Fazad Ali was needed as a witness he would try his best and get him.

Under cross-examination Hypolite said he had been working with the URP from the start of the project in 1999. At that time he was a member of the Jamaat al Muslimeen. Several members of the Jamaat held prominent positions in the URP. In response he named Khalil Saif, also known as Carl Simon; Agnar whose surname he did not know; Mark Guerra, and Lancelot Ottley. Those were all he could remember. He did not know these people well. He does not speak to them now. In 1999 they were speaking to him.
Witness recalled that in September 1999 he worked on the accused premises at Tunapuna. He saw accused in that office often. Before September when he was approached to do the job he did not know him at all. The accused was a total stranger when he first approached him. He subsequently went to do a job also with a complete stranger – the driver of the car.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So you had serious business with people whom you do not know?
HYPOLITE: I have not done that business before.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So this is the first time you are doing a serious work with somebody you don’t know. I take it you will not do that again? — You are sure right, sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Doesn’t that sound jokey? — No sir,
Continuing under cross-examination Hypolite said the police spoke to him in January, 2000. Inquiries were made about a 323 Mazda car. Witness denied leaving a 323 car in January by Fazad Ali.
It was a Sunday in January that I went by a Muslim brother called Fazad Ali. I know where he lives. I had my own car in January. He denied leaving the car PBC-5135, a red Mazda, at Ali in January.
When he was shown a vehicle by the police he could not recall the number. They showed it to him at the Mayaro Police Station after he was charged with the murder of Sumairsingh. Between the time of going to Mayaro with Chen and the time of going away witness denied he spoke to Fazad Ali on more than one occasion. He said apart from the police and his wife he spoke to no one.
Hypolite denied he told Fazad Ali that he had gone to Mayaro with Khalil Saif, a man called Roger, and one Sean Francis, whom he did not know was also called ‘Totoman.’
Witness insisted that he did not know the driver of the car which took them to the beach house. However, if he saw the man again he would recognise him.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So you are going to assassinate somebody and you don’t know the man.
Witness said they had gone on three occasions and he still did not know the man. He added: “I never heard Chen call him except by his gangster name – Arkee. Chen called me Abdullah.
Witness said he did not know in whose car they had travelled to the beach house.
Asked by Hudson-Phillips witness said he was arrested by the police while driving on the Uriah Butler Highway on a Friday. He was going to Jumah. He said it was while his case was going on and the car put into evidence that the police showed him the car. He was not one hundred percent sure that it was the car they drove in.
Witness said he was arrested sometime in November, 2000. He denied that long before that he wanted to talk to the police.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: But some three or four months after you were in custody you decided to tell the police what happened? — Yes sir.
He agreed that four witnesses had testified at the preliminary inquiry, and attorney Brooks had represented him.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Who paid him? — My wife.
Witness agreed giving statements to the police on February 16 and on February 21 and 22, and having sworn to a statutory declaration, after which the case against him was not dropped; witness said it was still going on.
In answer to Hudson-Phillips, Hypolite recalled that after the statement he was kept in prison for five days. He now lived at home which is guarded by police.
Witness said the police is there by his own request. He does his work at home and has not as yet made any effort to leave Trinidad and Tobago.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: But you agreed to testify, and agreed that you would not leave Trinidad and Tobago without permission; and you will also agree to subject yourself to arrangements for your protection?
HYPOLITE: It means to co-operate.

AN application filed by the All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union (ATSGWTU) on the VSEP for Caroni (1975) Limited workers will be heard in the Industrial Court today at 9 am.

In a statement yesterday the union said pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act, Chap. 88 for Orders, it filed the application in respect of the failure of Caroni to recognise it as the recognised majority union of the daily paid employees and/or in good faith to treat and enter into negotiations with it for the purposes of collective bargaining. The ATSGWTU claimed Caroni developed and implemented a VSEP without obtaining the agreement of the union and despite the union’s expressed disapproval. The union further alleged that the company has refused its request to provide details for Caroni’s restructuring. Attorneys Douglas Mendes, Dave Cowie and Ashvani Mahabir will represent the ATSGWTU. On Tuesday, 2,500 sugar workers signed a petition in support of legal action by former Attorney-General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj against the Caroni VSEP.

GOVERNMENT is prepared to guarantee loans made by the Caribbean Development Bank to shareholder governments of LIAT up to an aggregate amount of EC $12.5 million (TT30 million), Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Ken Valley said yesterday.

This is the decision taken at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday which discussed what could be done to save the cash-strapped regional carrier. Valley said Government was not prepared to give LIAT money directly. At least, not until the Steering Committee, led by Ken Gordon and charged with the responsibility for examining the future of the regional airline industry, prepared its findings. “Until the committee reports, there would be no more direct funding to either LIAT or BWIA,” he said. The Steering Committee is considering a proposal to merge LIAT, BWIA and Air Jamaica into one regional airline. Asked whether government, which owns just one per cent of LIAT, was favouring the regional carrier over national airline BWIA, Valley was emphatic: “No, we are not, we cannot and will not.”

LIAT requires an immediate injection of US $935,000 or  it is likely that creditors would seize five of its ten aircraft. But sources stated that the regional airline really needed EC $25 million to take care of its major current debts. The airline’s total indebtedness is EC $100 million. Just last year, the Caricom heads decided to bail out LIAT to the tune of EC $11 million (TT $22 million), 40 percent of which was to be guaranteed by the Trinidad and Tobago government. The more recent decision of Trinidad and Tobago comes in the wake of a meeting between Prime Minister Patrick Manning and St Vincent Prime Minister Ralph Gonzalves on the issue of LIAT.

THE recent firing of Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) chief executive officer Seebalack Singh, for his refusal to sanction the bank’s $4.5 million investment in CLICO became the subject of a High Court hearing on Wednesday.

In an application for judicial review of the ADB board’s decision to fire him on January 23, Singh contended that he opposed the million dollar investment because it was contrary to the laws governing the functioning of the ADB. When the case was called yesterday in the San Fernando High Court, Justice David Myers heard allegations of victimization by the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM) against Singh. The allegation was made by Singh’s attorney Dr Fenton Ramsahoye QC, who submitted that Singh’s dismissal was a case of political corruption. “And Singh was fired for trying to prevent the corruption and for refusing to participate in it,” Ramsahoye, who is leading attorney Anand Ramlogan, told the judge.

In his application for judicial review, Singh said a new ADB board was appointed on June 2002. At a board meeting in October, a decision was taken to invest the money because Clico was offering the highest rate of return at the time. Singh said he pointed out to the new board chairman that the previous board had withdrawn an investment with CLICO due to the fact that the Auditor General had criticised the investment. Despite this advice, Singh said, the board instructed him to meet with one of the ADB’s directors with a view to implementing the decision. Singh pointed out that a particular board member was also a CLICO sales representative and that member was present at the meeting when the decision was taken to invest. “I expressed concern about investing the bank’s money in an insurance company and in particular, in any life insurance product,” he said. Singh referred to the Auditor General’s report and Ministry of Finance’s criticisms of investing in CLICO’s life insurance products.

Singh said he was instructed by ADB chairman Hubert Alleyne to give the $4.5 million cheque to the director. He did so. Singh said a legal opinion was sought and the ADB was advised that the investment was illegal. Singh said on November 20, 2002, he was instructed by Alleyne to proceed on annual vacation leave with immediate effect “to facilitate an investigation into my alleged failure to implement the decision of the board”. On December 27, Singh was informed by the board that he neglected his duty as CEO when he failed to implement the board’s decision. He subsequently received a letter terminating his contract. Singh is contending that the decision to terminate him was conducted in bad faith for the improper purpose of making an illegal investment. The case comes up for hearing again on April 16.

LEADER OF the Opposition in the Senate Wade Mark, has dubbed Prime Minister Patrick Manning a hypocrite over Caroni (1975) Limited, charging that since moving from Opposition to Government Manning had changed his tune on the controversy.

Mark was moving a motion on the adjournment of the Upper House on Tuesday evening when he declared: “The evil, insensitive PNM regime has taken a unilateral decision to close Caroni. The unilateral, ‘unconsultative’, dictatorial PNM regime has limited sugar production to 75,000 – 80,000 tonnes per year to be processed in Usine Ste Madeiline, while Brechin Castle is to be closed”. He then read out a 1999 address by Manning, then Leader of the Opposition, to the annual PNM Convention, recalling Manning saying: “The present (UNC)  government is proposing to get rid of Caroni (1975) Limited altogether. Sixty thousand citizens depend on Caroni for their survival. The social implications are too tremendous to contemplate. The PNM opposes this approach”.

Mark hit Manning, saying: “Now the Prime Minister is singing a different tune. What a hypocrite and a total disappointment!” He accused the Government of establishing its position by way of media advertisements and talk shows, instead of talking with sugar workers’ representatives. Mark added: “This is the first time the State has chosen not to negotiate with the majority union but to communicate through the media and at public meetings…It is laying the basis for social unrest and industrial instability in the country.”

Mark cautioned that Caroni was not just an industry but a way of life, and not just an industrial problem but a human problem. “Rahael is wreaking havoc. The land-grabbing has already started — their friends and family. Where’s the comprehensive plan for Caroni (1975) Limited, or is this just a plan to destroy the union?” Mark claimed that Minister of Public Administration Dr Lenny Saith had told sugar workers he wanted to break the UNC-aligned All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union (ATSGWTU). At that, Saith rose to sternly retort: “I deny I have ever said such a thing to any sugar worker in this country.” An ebullient Mark confidently hit back: “I’ll bring the proof, the workers who were there.”

Recalling the government justifying the restructuring of Caroni because it had a $2 billion debt, Mark asked if the government would also close down WASA for its $10 billion debt. 
Noting the government wanted to allocate $500 million to CEPEP and even $36 million to bail out LIAT, Mark asked: “What about the 300,000 people relying directly or indirectly on Caroni? What about their children? What about the crime that will result from such closure? “We serve notice that the UNC will embark on a policy and strategy of non-cooperation inside and outside of Parliament. We’ll support no legislation brought to this Parliament until the PNM talks on Caroni”. Visiting from the Lower House, Minister of Agriculture John Rahael denied Mark’s charges.

Rahael said since 1978 many reports had concluded that Caroni needed to be restructured. “What we are doing is no different to what is in the reports.” Denying that government had ignored the sugar unions, Rahael said: “On Friday 28 June 2002, Ken Valley and I met the All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union and outlined the government’s plan to restructure Caroni. “The president of the union signed that the minutes were accurate. We offered the union to fund a consultant at a cost of $100,000. We asked the union to submit any suggestions or proposals … We talked about VSEP, industrial parks, housing parks and agricultural parks”. He said from June 2002 to January 2003 he had held many meetings with the ATSGWTU and the Employers’ Consultative Association (ECA). Rahael said the government had increased the proposed VSEP by amounts ranging from 30 percent to 50 percent of what retrenched workers were entitled.

He said: “We are creating entrepreneurs in Central Trinidad, moving cane-workers to become farmers, not just in cane but in food products, like citrus, rice and beef. They will have the first option to lease lands and become farmers in their own right.” Rahael said he had met many South and Central chambers of commerce, saying: “They are all very excited. I’m advising Senator Mark now he should invest in Central Trinidad.” Rahael envisioned: “Subdivide 3,300 acres of citrus into lots each of 12 acres of land — that will be 300 farmers! 6,000 acres for food production divided into 500 acre lots will give you 1,200 farmers. There’ll be a boom in Central Trinidad! We’ll increase production in agriculture. We are making people independent.” Mark interrupted: “But you are retrenching 10,000 workers!” Rahael continued, only to face more jibes from Mark. Lenny Saith admonished Mark: “Can I appeal to you can we have some decorum? This is not a fish market.” Mark continued: “10,000 people are going home. We are very emotional about this issue”.