A report in the Trinidad Express Wednesday says the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd (UDeCOTT) is accusing the Uff Commission of Enquiry into UDeCOTT and the construction sector of allowing critics of UDeCOTT to "defame and scandalise" UDeCOTT’s executive chairman Calder Hart.The assertion comes from Hart's attorney, Frank Solomon who is claiming that inquiry chairman Prof. John Uff did not honour an undertaking not to put the testimony of Carl Khan on the commission website before a meeting with himself, the four commissioners, the commission’s attorney and the attorneys for Hart and UDeCOTT.
Solomon is claiming that Uff compounded the problem by denying that he gave such an undertaking in an affidavit, filed on November 20, 2009.
The paper said these issues are contained in an affidavit that Solomon filed on December 17 in the judicial review case coming up for hearing in January.
It said the affidavit is supported by another one filed by UDeCOTT’s chief operating officer, Neelanda Rampaul, on December 18.
The testimony is question was given by Khan during the sitting of the Uff commission in which he stated that there was a family link between Hart and CH Development's directors and shareholders.
Hart's lawyers declined an opportunity to cross-examine Khan before the inquiry closed.
However, according to the Express, the affidavits take serious issue with the "special treatment" given by Uff to Khan’s testimony and found several faults with the way Uff handled Khan.
The company won a $368 million contract from UDeCOTT to build the Legal Affairs Towers.
"It was, therefore, clear from the outset that not only was there the intention on the part of the critics of UDeCOTT to exploit the opportunity of the Commission of Enquiry...to defame and scandalise Mr Hart, but also that the commission itself could be persuaded to facilitate such exploitation," Solomon told the Express.
Uff has said he could not ignore Khan’s evidence given its critical nature of a family link between the Harts and directors of CH Development. "It was not a claim which we could ignore consistently with our duties as commissioners," the Express quoted him as saying.
Uff said the "special treatment" accorded to Khan’s evidence was not an indication of bias, but arose from the "lateness of this evidence", the paper reported.
"In view of the short time available, I decided that the statutory declarations should be introduced into the commission’s proceedings as soon as possible...
"While it would clearly have been preferable for all parties and for the commission if Carl Khan’s evidence had emerged earlier in the proceedings and been dealt with in the same fashion as that of the other witnesses, I do not accept that the way in which we dealt with his late-emerging evidence gives any proper ground for an allegation of bias," Uff stated.
Read the full details in the Trinidad Express
No comments:
Post a Comment