(Trinidad Express) “I did my job and I am quite satisfied. I have no plans to step down.”
That was Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s response yesterday to calls for him to step down made by the Prime Minister following the Integrity Commission’s indication on Tuesday that it was terminating its probe into emailgate.
In a letter on Tuesday to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s lawyer, Israel Khan, SC, the Integrity Commission said it was “satisfied that there are no or insufficient grounds for continuing the investigation” into the emailgate affair “and accordingly this investigation is hereby terminated”.
Persad-Bissessar has hailed the development as a major victory.
Speaking yesterday to reporters at the Hilton Trinidad and Conference Centre, St Ann’s, following a function hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (Amcham), titled “Beyond the Ballot”, Rowley said he felt he had performed his job very well in asking for an investigation into the matter.
“I came across the documentation. I asked for an investigation. I did so in the place provided for me and that place is called the Parliament. I did so after considerable thought and considerable patience, and if there are those who don’t like that, well then I’m sorry but that is what the circumstances required,” he said.
“Interestingly enough, the investigations have been going on for two years and as I speak to you now they are still inconclusive, so therefore the need for an investigation and a prima facie case has been made, so I don’t know that we need to be sweating much over that,” Rowley added.
Commenting on the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday that his leadership has again been called into question and that he is unfit to lead the country, the Opposition Leader said: “If someone can point out to me how asking for an investigation into this case makes me unsuitable, I will want to ask whether the investigations I asked for into LifeSport, into Section 34, into the NEC (National Energy Corporation) scam, if any of those investigations also made me unsuitable?”
Rowley went on to accuse the Government of “spinning” the public away from the context of the e-mails. He stressed that the e-mails were largely about Section 34 and the Government’s attempt to use the Parliament and other agencies of State to afford their financiers an opportunity to evade the courts.
He said, though, every time “Government spinners” speak about the e-mails, they only make mention of the him making reference to the murder of a journalist.
“That is spin. The real content of those documents had to do with Section 34 issues and they are not going to steer us away from that. So those persons who may want to look at the envelope and ignore the contents, they are free to do that.”
No breach in Landate
Meanwhile, the Opposition Leader slammed Trade, Industry, Investment and Communications Minister Vasant Bharath for claiming on a television station yesterday morning the probe into the Landate affair remains inconclusive.
The Landate matter involved the allegation that materials were siphoned from the Scarborough Hospital project to a private housing project-Landate-owned by Rowley’s wife, Sharon. Rowley maintained yesterday that matter had come to an end before the Integrity Commission and he was fully exonerated.
“I went before the commission of enquiry and was cross-examined by lawyers, senior counsel. I subjected myself to the Integrity Commission for a year and a half. My wife’s business, my family business were investigated and at the end of it, this was the statement by the Integrity Commission: ‘Having concluded our investigation, we have found no basis to suspect that you have been in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act. We thank you for your cooperation.’ That is a fact.
“That is quite different to what we’re hearing now that we have to await an investigation and that there are more questions than answers (with respect to emailgate). As I speak to you now, I don’t know what the Integrity Commission investigated. What I do know is that whatever they investigated, they have terminated due to insufficient evidence.”