Friday, April 25 2008

Following Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s dismissal from the Cabinet of Trade and Industry Minister Dr Keith Rowley on Wednesday, Dr Rowley gave a press conference at his Diego Marin West Constituency Office, Carenage, on Wednesday night. Excerpts follow.

Ladies and gentlemen. As you know I am sitting here in my capacity as former Minister of Trade and Industry as of today. I’ll remain the Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West in which office you are now present.
The question I think you want to ask me is what happened today and it is very simple...I was fired.. If you have any questions you ask.
Question: A lot of people would consider this the culmination of some long standing issue between you and the Prime Minister. One, is that really the case and two, how long do you plan to stay in the party as a representative of Diego Martin West given what has happened today?
Rowley: Let me answer the second question first. No issue arises about me staying in the party. I joined the PNM not as a member of the Cabinet. I have been in the PNM for 30-odd years. It has nothing to do with being or serving in the Cabinet.
I am a party member and so I shall remain, unless of course the party expels me and I am not aware that I’ve got anything to worry about. So, my position in the PNM is not in question.
As to my relationship with the constituency, I am the Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West. I was elected to represent the people of Diego Martin West in the Parliament and I shall continue to do that to the best of my ability for this parliamentary term.
Now to your other question as to my relationship with the Prime Minister. As far as I am aware, I have had an extremely good relationship with the Prime Minister. From time to time we won’t see eye to eye on matters. The reason why you have a Cabinet is because you want the views of different people to run the country’s affairs.
I have been in the Cabinet for some time. This issue about the revocation of my appointment today, the specific issue is my objection to certain activities of a state company. That state company is Udecott. As you may know, I had been the minister for Udecott when I was Minister of Planning and Development. We had issues then.
I have been the subject of an Integrity Commission action which I have taken to the court and we have issues there and the issue of recent vintage of last week has to do with a project with which Udecott is involved. My main reaction to it is reacting to the surprise that such a development could be taking place without appropriate Cabinet oversight.
My concern had to do with a demand for Cabinet oversight of Udecott’s activities where billions of dollars of state funds are being expended on projects which are unnecessary. I am not in any debate over the project. My concern had to do with the procurement processes and the nature of the activities with respect to Cabinet oversight. And, I raised that and I clearly offended certain people.
Question: Dr Rowley, you spoke about a 60-room hotel?
Rowley: Yes, the sub-committee of the Cabinet was made aware of Udecott’s construction of a 60-room hotel on the Princes Building Grounds site as part of the performing arts centre or academy, that is the correct word. As you know we are building a performing arts academy on the Princes Building Grounds.
We discovered recently that as part of that complex that’s under construction there is a 60-room hotel. As a member of Cabinet I had to ask certain relevant questions and I had to take certain positions, which I did, which resulted in my dismissal.
Question: What was your position about this project in question?
Rowley: Well, for a start, it is my view that if I am a part of the Cabinet and such a project is taking place and is being funded by the State that I would be aware of it and have some input of oversight through the Cabinet. I was taken by complete surprise, as were my colleagues and this could only have happened because Udecott’s business is being conducted in such a way that such a development can take place to the surprise of Cabinet members.
Question: Would you have any time to consider a bid for leadership of the party?
Rowley: I have no commitment to make to that, except that I have always maintained that I’m a team player and I represent the PNM to the best of my ability. That is not before me tonight.
Question: Tomorrow?
Rowley: Smiles.
Question: Given what happened today, and that the party’s convention meeting will be held in the next few months, are there any connections?
Rowley: I hadn’t thought about it until you raised it. This matter is purely a development that took place with respect to the Cabinet.
Question: Dr Rowley, are you concerned that there is intolerance and dissent within the Cabinet?
Rowley: Yes, I am concerned about that.
Question: Doctor, the Prime Minister accuses you of misconduct. Is it in connection with this project (Udecott and hotel) that you spoke about earlier?
Rowley: Yes, it had to do with a meeting of the sub-committee of the Cabinet called the Finance and General Purposes. I have been accused of misconduct and I sought to find out what were the elements of this misconduct. I could not find out what it was. What I did was to express my disagreement with the way that Udecott was being allowed to conduct Government’s business without adequate Cabinet oversight.
I didn’t use unparliamentary language, I didn’t shout at anybody, I didn’t use obscene language, I didn’t bang on the desk. I didn’t identify any person who might have been responsible for this.
I took a position of principle requesting that the Cabinet be in charge of the country’s affairs and it could only do that if they have proper procedures in place. And I did it against a background of my own involvement with Udecott. I was the Minister for Udecott and I had certain difficulties with their behaviour. Against the background of elements and persons in Udecott I believed they were seeking to conspire with others in the Integrity Commission to have me charged with criminal conduct and against the background of Udecott’s involvement in the housing programme when I was Minister of Housing and I took steps to ensure that Cabinet prevented Udecott from getting involved in the housing programme.
So, against that background, my position last Monday can be seen as a continuation of my dissatisfaction with Udecott’s existence and presence within the public sector and how it has been allowed to function.
Recently I had a look at volumes of documents made available to me from the Parliament, documents of my speeches during the seven-year period when the UNC was in Opposition and I must say, I was stunned at the number of hours I spoke in the Parliament, most of it having to do with misconduct of the UNC Cabinet.
And with that track record, and when I was thrown out of Parliament for demanding proper procedures I find it difficult to swallow that as a member of a PNM Cabinet, and with Udecott’s problems as I know them, had to be glossed over by me because if I raised objections I will offend certain people. Clearly I have offended people, but I prefer it that way. It’s the only way I know it.
Question: When did the Prime Minister summoned you to his office on this matter?
Rowley: Ten-thirty this morning.
Question: And after that he summoned you again?
Rowley: At 12 o’clock.
Question: Could you just give us a brief update of the chronological order.
Rowley: I was aware that the Prime Minister had concerns, but I was summoned this morning and confronted with a position that the Prime Minister had received a report that I had misconducted myself. Now, I don’t know what this trend is about. If I do something, ladies and gentlemen, I am quite prepared to stand the consequences. What I have difficulty with is being accused of things I didn’t do.
I am in the courts. I have to pay $350,000 to have the Integrity Commission say I didn’t do anything. Now my own Prime Minister is telling me he got some report from somebody unnamed that I did something and I am asking, What did I do?.
I can’t be told what I did, but you are to be fired for what you did, so, tell me what I did. I can’t be told what I did, but I must be disciplined for what I did and I find that to be a very strange development in a PNM Cabinet, in Trinidad and Tobago.
I am simply saying that this is the country’s business, and if that is how the country is being conducted, then something is radically wrong, and the PNM, party should take cognisance of how it is conducting the country’s affairs. That is all that I am saying.
Question: Do you think that this is some kind of plot by some hierarchy PNM members to have your character assassinated?
Rowley: Well, if you had asked me that about my difficulty with the Integrity Commission I would have said yes, certainly.
ROWLEY from Page 7A

The difficulties I have had with the Integrity Commission which acted on Udecott-generated allegations, is that the Commission followed lock, stock and barrel, and eventually the Commission wrote to me telling me that they have no basis for the volley of allegations which have had my name slandered across the world in recent times. They also said to me that a police officer, who claimed that he was investigating on behalf of the Integrity Commission, matters that I raised with them with respect to officers in Udecott.
So all of these things have been happening and at the end of the day it is interesting that my normal Cabinet duties...because you see, this country does not have a history of dealing with issues, I was a member of Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago. I am a longstanding member of the Parliament and I have had numerous Cabinet exposure and I understand, to the best of my knowledge, Cabinet arrangements.
A member of the Cabinet is bound by a decision of the Cabinet, and therefore, you are required to take a stand on issues of policy and principle and if you object to what the Cabinet is doing or not doing, the place to do so is going to be in the Cabinet. I didn’t come out and tell the newspapers about my concerns about Udecott. I didn’t tell anybody outside of the Cabinet.
Within a sub-committee of the Cabinet I raised my concerns about Udecott’s conduct. Udecott is a state-owned enterprise which incidentally, at an earlier time, I had portfolio and responsibility for, and had certain knowledge of their modus operandi, which resulted in me being charged or almost charged for criminal conduct. We had a situation where a member of the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago took a ministerial decision to prevent corruption in Udecott and found himself before the court having to ask the court for relief because those who were heading in a direction that was unacceptable to the minister got the ears of the Integrity Commission, got the action of the Integrity Commission, the Integrity brought, at great expense to you the taxpayers, an investigator from Canada and put him to investigate allegations made against me.The investigator was forced to tell the court, it’s in the public documents in the court, that in the process of investigating me, Udecott failed to cooperate with the investigator.
Udecott failed to give the investigator certain information which would have exonerated me, yet the Integrity Commission sent my name in a secret file to the DPP, who sent it to the police, to have me charged with criminal conduct.
This is what I have been through in the recent months. It has cost me $350,000 in legal fees just to have the Integrity Commission confirm in the end that the body of allegations made against me about my own conduct with Udecott and the Integrity Commission has told the court, it’s on the court record, that I didn’t act corruptly to favour NH. In fact what I did, I acted to prevent corruption.That is on the court record put there by the Registrar of the Integrity Commission.
Question: Was Culture Minister Marlene McDonald aware of the construction of the hotel?
Rowley: I don’t know who was aware and who wasn’t aware. What I know is that the sub- committee of which I was a member, and I was unaware, and when it came before us it was the first time that we knew that a 60-room hotel was being built by Udecott on this site and it was in response to that information that I took a position with respect to Udecott’s conduct to this country’s business, and I raised it in the context of the Cabinet allowing this to happen.
Question: Would you regard your removal as part of the cleansing process of the old guard?
Rowley: I don’t regard myself as being inflicted with leprosy, so I don’t think so.
Question: In regards to developmental projects in Trinidad and Tobago right now, who has more power, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago or Calder Hart?
Rowley: I can’t answer that question, except as a recent member of the Cabinet, I know that the Prime Minister is in charge of Cabinet. I don’t know about anybody else with this power.
I can only speak for myself and this development clearly demonstrates that I have my concerns and I have acted on those concerns and I have paid the consequences.. I have no prescriptive right to office to any Cabinet or even to the Parliament for that matter.
Question: How will this affect your performance in Parliament?
Rowley: I am a PNM member of Parliament and I want to say this quite clearly I am a Member of Parliament representing Diego Martin West and that will remain so until nomination day.
Question: How were you informed about your resignation?
Rowley: Of what? There was no resignation, I was fired.
Question: About how you were fired?
Rowley: I was told by the Prime Minister that he would advise the President to revoke my appointment.
Question: Any tension with regards to the Prime Minister’s running of the Cabinet?
Rowley: That is a debate on Westminster prime ministerial power which I am not prepared to get into at this time. That might be a whole debate for the country at a future time as to prime ministerial power and we are all aware as to the powers of the Prime Minister. I am not unaware of it and I quite respected it. It is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to configure his Cabinet.
The only reason why I am talking to you tonight is that I have been accused of misconduct and I plead not guilty.
Question: Were you the only dissenting voice?
Rowley: Gentleman, I can only speak for myself and I am sure if you have questions about other people’s positions and people’s conduct, you can talk to them about it. I will restrict myself to my own statements, my own conduct, my own position.
Question: What should members of the public think about statements about Udecott?. Is there perceived corruption at Udecott?
Rowley: Let’s back up a bit. It is fashionable and cliched in this country to talk about corruption. Everything you don’t understand you call it corruption. Anything you don’t like you call it corruption. I am not going there tonight. I am staying with the requirement for proper procedures to ensure that the pure form and the foundation for corruption is not facilitated by the executive.
Corruption is not something that comes out of the ether of the atmosphere on its own. There has to be an environment in which it will prosper. Corruption has to have a place to take root. It has to have a certain kind of facilitation and processes and procedures of accountability....
Question: Be specific with regards to Udecott regarding processes and procedures...your questions.
Rowley: I have had difficulty with Udecott from 2001 with respect of how the public’s business has been conducted in Udecott and as a result of that I have taken certain action which has resulted in me being framed by information coming out of Udecott to the Integrity Commission which has resulted in a multi-million dollar activity in and out of the court.
...There were persons in the Government, in the Integrity Commission and at Udecott who decided that I had to be removed in handcuffs. I am not telling you any secret here. I told that to the PNM General Council last September.
Question: these were your colleagues?
Rowley: Of course they’re my colleagues. The report that went to the DPP went on the 7th of August, 2006, a report which alleged that I did conduct myself in a criminal way. That report went to the DPP on the 7th of August. I sat in the Cabinet August, September, October, November, December, totally unaware of this.
Question: Who were the people responsible at Udecott?
Rowley: I have not been able to get the Integrity Commission to say to me who told them I was supposed to have done what I was supposed to have done. However, in the court, the Integrity Commission told the court there was no complainant against me in this matter. It was the Integrity Commission who decided to bring in allegations against me. You take that for what it’s worth.