Joshua Seemu­n­gal

jseem001@gmail.com

The Op­po­si­tion Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) has again called for an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to what the par­ty con­tin­ues to al­lege is Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley’s fail­ure to de­clare a $1.2 mil­lion To­ba­go town­house to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

At a press con­fer­ence yes­ter­day morn­ing in Port-of-Spain, Op­po­si­tion sen­a­tor Anil Roberts claimed that the Prime Min­is­ter was still not in the clear de­spite Row­ley’s as­ser­tions that he did noth­ing wrong.

“Did the ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter break the law? Did he fail to give a full and com­plete and truth­ful ac­count and state­ment of reg­is­tra­ble in­ter­est - Form B Sec­tion 6 (un­der the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act)...Did he fill that out prop­er­ly? Did he sign it and know it was truth­ful or false? Sign­ing a fake de­c­la­ra­tion is a charge,” Roberts said.

He added: “These breach­es we are dis­cussing are li­able, on sum­ma­ry con­vic­tion, to a fine of $250,000 and 10 years im­pris­on­ment. We re­quire an in­ves­ti­ga­tion ful­ly to see what Row­ley waived is the same as what was lodged.”

The op­po­si­tion said it is un­con­vinced by Row­ley’s ex­pla­na­tions about his de­c­la­ra­tion of the To­ba­go town­house pur­chased in 2019.

At a press con­fer­ence on Fri­day, the Prime Min­is­ter said all nec­es­sary doc­u­ments were lodged at the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion on De­cem­ber 20, 2020, fol­low­ing an ex­ten­sion re­quest.

Row­ley said the de­c­la­ra­tion was made on form A of his de­c­la­ra­tion, a con­fi­den­tial form, and not form B, which is avail­able to the pub­lic.

“He did not put it on form B be­cause he doesn’t want the whole world to know he got a ben­e­fit of $468,000 and this is very se­ri­ous,” Roberts claimed.

He added: “The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress has ev­i­dence that Kei­th Row­ley paid a stamp du­ty of $33,500...That works out to a val­ue of $1.68 mil­lion...Kei­th Row­ley on his form A de­c­la­ra­tion, that he signed, put $1.2 mil­lion.”

Ac­cord­ing to the Op­po­si­tion, sev­er­al high-pro­file peo­ple al­so bought town­hous­es at the In­ez Gate, Shir­van Road de­vel­op­ment.

How­ev­er, Roberts claimed those peo­ple paid more than Row­ley did for his town­house.

“That would mean Kei­th Row­ley re­ceived a dis­count, a ben­e­fit, a gift, a per­son­al ben­e­fit of $460,000,” Roberts claimed.

He said, “Here’s where the prob­lem aris­es with be­ing a per­son in pub­lic life un­der Sec­tion 21 of the per­son in pub­lic life. A per­son, who this act ap­plies, shall not ac­cept a fee, gift or per­son­al ben­e­fit, (di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly) ex­cept com­pen­sa­tion au­tho­rized by law - which is your pack­age, your salary.

Last Fri­day, the Prime Min­is­ter said he is con­sid­er­ing su­ing Op­po­si­tion MP Sad­dam Ho­sein - who first raised the is­sue at a UNC Mon­day Night Fo­rum.

Un­der the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act, peo­ple in pub­lic life are re­quired to file an­nu­al de­c­la­ra­tions and state­ments to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.