The People’s Progressive Party is yet to comprehensively respond to the glaring report by the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU) that could lead to criminal action against its members for their involvement in the acquisition of land at the controversial Pradoville 2 Housing Scheme.
At the party’s weekly press briefing held yesterday, General Secretary Clement Rohee told Stabroek News, “Our thinking and our position on that will come out soon in a statement to be issued this week.”
Even though Rohee was one of the five ministers named in the report, which alleges that former ministers of the PPP/C government who accessed property in the Pradoville 2 scheme should be liable for misconduct in office, he told reporters that Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo would be the one to pronounce on the party’s official stance.
The party had previously challenged the legality of the SARU and in a statement last week accused the government of trying to focus attention away from the public furore over the recent 50% pay increase awarded to some government ministers.
The party in a statement said the government is yet to even provide the composition of SARU and the unit’s Terms of Reference, which brings SARU’s legality into question. While the party is questioning SARU’s legality that does not mean that any finding from the unit could not be sent to the Chambers of the Attorney General or the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions, which could then be further investigated resulting in a civil and or criminal case respectively by the state.
Last week, Attorney General Basil Williams said it was only a matter of time before his chambers sought to file civil action against five former ministers and others named the SARU report. He had additionally stated that he would recommended that the Unit, headed by Dr Clive Thomas, submit the report to the DPP. The SARU report was circulated in the public on Wednesday.
At a press briefing at his office last week, Williams said, “I can assure you that once we find sufficient evidence to constitute the tort [a wrongful act leading to civil legal liability]… and I believe there is because you have ministers, former minsters who knew they were getting land at an undervalue, that was state land and then they actually resold the land for profit.”
He acknowledged that DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack was named in the SARU document as a recipient of Pradoville 2 land and said that as a result she would need to recuse herself from any investigation.
The ex-ministers who benefited from land in the scheme are former natural resources minister Robert Persaud, former education minister Priya Manickchand, Rohee, former labour minister Dr Nanda Gopaul and former public service minister Jennifer Westford. The document says nothing about any action against former president Bharrat Jagdeo as he would be covered by presidential immunity.
Subsequently to the report being circulated, Gopaul, in a letter to this publication denied ever being the recipient of any house lot in the scheme.
The document seen by Stabroek News states that “The lands were sold to the former ministers and known friends and associates of the previous regime. At the time of the sale the lands were grossly undervalued and sold substantially lower than the market value for the land thereby depriving the state of its full benefits.” It added that at the time the lands were sold for $114 per square foot.
The document also noted that transfers and subsequent sales of properties had conditions attached such as the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) would have to sign off on any sale before 10 years of ownership.
Manickchand sold her land to Dave Naraine for $100 million on February 21, 2013, three years after the purchase of the said land, without any written permission from the CHPA thereby being in breach of Clause C of the conditions attached by CHPA.
It added that Persaud’s land was transferred into the names of relatives. On September 18, 2014 the said land was sold to LSR Company for $90 million without any written permission from CHPA thereby being in breach of Clause C.
