The Cab­i­net has tak­en a de­ci­sion to launch a com­mis­sion of en­quiry in­to land ac­qui­si­tion for the con­struc­tion of the Point Fortin High­way.

The fol­low­ing are the terms of ref­er­ence for the com­mis­sion:

I. To en­quire in­to-

(i) the ac­tions of and on be­half of the State in ac­quir­ing and tak­ing steps to ac­quire prop­er­ties and struc­tures in re­spect of the con­struc­tion of the ex­ten­sion of the Solomon Ho­choy High­way Ex­ten­sion to Point Fortin (here­inafter re­ferred to as “the SHHEPF Project”).

(ii) Whether the Cab­i­net ap­point­ed Min­is­te­r­i­al Over­sight Com­mit­tee which com­prised:-

1. Hon. Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar – Prime Min­is­ter (Chair­man);

2. Hon. Stephen Cadiz – Min­is­ter of Trade and In­dus­try;

3. Hon.Win­ston Dook­er­an- Min­is­ter of Fi­nance;

4. Hon. Dr. Roodal Mooni­lal – Min­is­ter of Hous­ing and En­vi­ron­ment;

5. Hon. Chan­dresh Shar­ma- Min­is­ter of Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment;

6. Hon. Jack Warn­er- Min­is­ter of Works and Trans­port;

7. Sen­a­tor the Hon. Em­manuel George- Min­is­ter of Pub­lic Util­i­ties;

8. Sen­a­tor the Hon. Kevin Ram­nar­ine- Min­is­ter En­er­gy and En­er­gy Af­fairs;

9. Sen­a­tor the Hon. Dr. Bhoen­dra­datt Tewarie – Min­is­ter of Plan­ning and Econ­o­my; and

10. Hon. Sta­cy Roop­nar­ine- Min­is­ter of State in the Min­istry if Works and In­fra­struc­ture,

ful­filled its man­date –

a) To act as a pol­i­cy guid­ance mech­a­nism for the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the SHHEPF project pro­vid­ing ad­vice, as re­quired, to the Cab­i­net on key ar­eas of de­ci­sion mak­ing and re­view as the SHHEPF Project pro­gressed.

b) To act as a mech­a­nism to en­sure that all ap­provals were ef­fi­cient­ly ob­tained to al­low for ad­her­ence to the SHHEPF Project time­lines and qual­i­ty stan­dards.

c) To over­see the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the SHHEPF Project as it re­lat­ed to fund­ing, qual­i­ty met­rics and time.

d) To spear­head:-

1. the pub­lic out­reach as­pect of the SHHEPF Project to en­sure that the gen­er­al pub­lic is kept in­formed as to the im­pli­ca­tions, im­pacts and ben­e­fits of the project to the coun­try as a whole.

2. the Com­mu­ni­ty Out­reach pro­gramme and the man­age­ment of im­pacts to the af­fect­ed stake­hold­ers.

e) To en­sure:-

1. that the prop­er mon­i­tor­ing and eval­u­a­tion was un­der­tak­en and that the coun­try re­ceived val­ue for mon­ey out­put.

2. the lo­cal con­struc­tion in­dus­try ben­e­fit­ted from the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the SHHEPF Project and that there was a trans­fer of knowl­edge to the ex­tent pos­si­ble in the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the project.

f) To es­tab­lish guide­lines for the re­lo­ca­tion and com­pen­sa­tion of af­fect­ed per­sons.

(iii) The de­ci­sion of the Na­tion­al In­fra­struc­ture De­vel­op­ment Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed (here­inafter re­ferred to as “NID­CO”) to re­duce the right of way for the SHHEPF Project and to con­sid­er whether and what ac­count was tak­en of the po­ten­tial le­gal and fi­nan­cial im­pli­ca­tions to the State and prop­er­ty own­ers who were served with Sec­tion 3 No­tices and Sec­tion 4 Or­ders un­der the Land Ac­qui­si­tion Act Chap­ter 58:01.

(iv) The cir­cum­stances which re­sult­ed in the State ei­ther ac­quir­ing or hav­ing tak­en steps to ac­quire prop­er­ties that are no longer re­quired for the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project.

(v) The com­pen­sa­tion or non-com­pen­sa­tion of per­sons who were served land ac­qui­si­tion No­tices and Or­ders and/or who in­curred ex­pens­es in sub­mit­ting claims for com­pen­sa­tion and/or whose prop­er­ties are no longer re­quired for the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project.

(vi) The process­es which were utilised by the State and/or NID­CO for ap­prov­ing the pay­ment of com­pen­sa­tion to per­sons af­fect­ed by the­land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project.

(vii) The process utilised by NID­CO and the Of­fice of the Com­mis­sion­er of State Lands (here­inafter re­ferred to as “the COSL”) for the al­lo­ca­tion of lands to per­sons af­fect­ed by the land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project in­clud­ing:

a) Those sit­u­at­ed at Pe­tit Morne and Gol­con­da to per­sons with good ti­tle;

b) Those sit­u­at­ed at Cedar Hill, Phase II to Squat­ters; and

c) Farm­ers.

(vi­ii) The process utilised by the State and/or NID­CO and /or the Trinidad and To­ba­go Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion for the re­lo­ca­tion of per­sons in­clud­ing el­der­ly/sick per­sons who were af­fect­ed by the land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project.

(ix) Whether per­sons who were al­lo­cat­ed State lands and/or hous­ing units from the Trinidad and To­ba­go Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion aris­ing out of the land ac­qui­si­tion for the SHHEPF Project were el­i­gi­ble to re­ceive same in ac­cor­dance with the Cab­i­net ap­proved com­pen­sa­tion pol­i­cy.

(x) Whether NID­CO and the COSL ex­er­cised due dili­gence in the al­lo­ca­tion of State lands and/or hous­ing units from the Trinidad and To­ba­go Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion.

(xi) Whether and what pay­ments were made by per­sons in con­sid­er­a­tion of their be­ing al­lo­cat­ed State lands and/or hous­ing units from the Trinidad and To­ba­go Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion un­der the Cab­i­net ap­proved com­pen­sa­tion pol­i­cy.

(xii) The val­u­a­tion method­ol­o­gy utilised by NID­CO and COSL for the as­sess­ment and pay­ment of com­pen­sa­tion for the lands which were to be ac­quired by the State for the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project and the steps tak­en to en­sure the in­tegri­ty of the val­u­a­tion process.

(xi­ii) Whether there were any con­flicts of in­ter­est or oth­er el­e­ments of im­pro­pri­ety on the part of the of­fi­cials of the Val­u­a­tion Di­vi­sion in the Min­istry of Fi­nance in­volved in the as­sess­ment of com­pen­sa­tion for any of the prop­er­ties which were sub­ject to the land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project and if so, the cir­cum­stances giv­ing rise to same and the man­ner in which they were han­dled and/or ad­dressed.

(xiv) The cir­cum­stances lead­ing to le­gal claims be­ing filed against the State and NID­CO aris­ing out of the land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project.

(xv) Whether there was an ap­pro­pri­ate com­pen­sa­tion pol­i­cy in place on March 4th, 2011 when NID­CO en­gaged the De­sign- Build Con­trac­tor, Con­stru­to­ra OAS Ltd (here­inafter re­ferred to as “OAS”) to com­plete de­sign and con­struc­tion works on the SHHEPF Project.

(xvi) The facts and cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the com­pen­sa­tion pol­i­cy which was in fact adopt­ed by the State for the ac­qui­si­tion of land for the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project.

(xvii) Whether the Gov­ern­ment’s land ac­qui­si­tion com­pen­sa­tion pol­i­cy that was utilised for the ac­qui­si­tion of lands in re­spect of the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project was un­der­tak­en with ap­pro­pri­ate due dili­gence and over­sight and in a man­ner suf­fi­cient to en­sure val­ue for mon­ey and the ab­sence of im­pro­pri­ety.

(xvi­ii) The facts and cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the hir­ing by NID­CO of pri­vate at­tor­neys/ne­go­ti­at­ing con­sul­tants and val­uers by NID­CO to as­sist in its man­age­ment of its Land Ac­qui­si­tion Port­fo­lio for the ac­qui­si­tion of lands by the State for the SHHEPF Project.

(xix) Whether the Board of NID­CO and/or the ex­ec­u­tive man­age­ment of NID­CO ful­filled and com­plied with the re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and du­ties im­posed up­on them by law and by good cor­po­rate gov­er­nance and prac­tice in man­ag­ing the Land Ac­qui­si­tion port­fo­lio for the ac­qui­si­tion of lands by the State for the con­struc­tion of the SHHEPF Project.

(xx) The iden­ti­ties of the of­fi­cials, if any, who have failed in their du­ties or such oth­er per­sons whose con­duct may have been against the best in­ter­ests of the State in the land ac­qui­si­tion process for the SHHEPF Project.

II. To make such find­ings, ob­ser­va­tions and rec­om­men­da­tions aris­ing out of its de­lib­er­a­tions, as may be deemed ap­pro­pri­ate, in re­la­tion to –

(i) Whether there has been a breach of du­ty by any per­sons or en­ti­ties;

(ii) Whether there are any grounds for any crim­i­nal and civ­il pro­ceed­ings to be ini­ti­at­ed against any per­sons or en­ti­ties;

(iii) Whether crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings should be rec­om­mend­ed to the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions for his con­sid­er­a­tion;

(iv) Whether civ­il pro­ceed­ings should be rec­om­mend­ed to the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al for his con­sid­er­a­tion;

(v) The ap­pro­pri­ate best prac­tice to be utilised by the State for the ac­qui­si­tion of land re­quired for pub­lic pur­pos­es; and

(vi) Any oth­er rec­om­men­da­tions that may be deemed nec­es­sary in the cir­cum­stances.