Duprey, Monteil defy enquiry again

Martin Daly, SC, attorney for former CL Financial executive Andre Monteil, has argued that his client has always abided by the rules of the commission of enquiry into Clico and the Hindu Credit Union. He was addressing Sir Anthony Colman, chairman of the commission, on the final day of the 11th session of the enquiry at the Winsure Building, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain.

Yesterday, Daly said the issue of contempt had become a “widely publicised” issue, especially as it related to reports about Monteil not attending the commission when subpoenaed. He was referring to the second summons the commission issued last week for Monteil to give evidence. Daly said: “One of the things we will be dealing with in our submissions is the question of contempt and the reason is the second summons against my client, when he was still observing the first, contained a penal clause. 

“Our view of the law and your powers of contempt are radically different to that of Mr Peter Carter (counsel for the commission). We need to address that in writing. We would like to assist you as best as we can, whether you, sitting as commissioner, have a contempt jurisdiction.” Daly said Monteil had always respected a summons, once it had been served.

“We have made it clear at every stage that once we were served with a summons from the commission, we would respect it, subject, of course, to the exercise of our statutory rights. We made that plain. “However, there have been reports that ‘Monteil refused to appear’ or ‘fails to appear.’ This is not in accordance with what we have been telling the commission all along.”

Andrew Mitchell, attorney for Lawrence Duprey, also appeared at yesterday’s sitting. Asked by Colman for his proposals, Mitchell replied that Duprey had not been served a subpoena and that the legislation requires he be served. “I have fundamental issues whether you should be exercising the powers given to you to continue with the pursuit of the summons against him. I am happy to put our submission to you,” he said.

It was then agreed that before the next session begins, submissions by all parties will be given in writing. Carter suggested a timetable for written submissions on behalf of Duprey and Monteil be sent to the commission. 

“It is appropriate for the submissions to be made in writing than in public because, inevitably, these arguments dealing with questions of privilege against self-incrimination, the arguments to be deployed by any party, may involve hypothetical arguments about potential criminality, which are best made in writing,” Carter said. It was agreed that written submissions should be made by March 22 and responses from the parties by April 2, and that the commission will reply by April 8.

The enquiry has been adjourned to the next evidence hearing, to begin on April 29.