Wednesday, October 7 2009

While the report in yesterday’s issue of Newsday that the Attorney General, Senator John Jeremie, had instructed the Executive Chairman of Udecott, Calder Hart, to have Udecott’s team of lawyers return to Court and amend the consent order which froze the Uff Commission of Inquiry, is welcome, the question remains: Why did the Attorney General take so long to act?

Another question arises: Who is Udecott’s (the Urban Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago) line Minister and why did he not take his cue from Cabinet’s move last week in ordering the Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (TSTT) and the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC) to withdraw their actions in the Industrial Court to have the respective trade unions representing their workers decertified?

Since Cabinet, of which the Attorney General is a member, had initiated the precedent setting action, why had Cabinet not intervened in respect of Udecott’s successful application for the consent order at the same time?

Additionally, why had the Attorney General believed it necessary to meet, personally, with Udecott executive chairman Calder Hart at the Cabildo Chambers to request that he instruct Udecott’s legal team to return to the High Court to enter the new consent order which would replace last week’s agreed upon order? Why did Senator Jeremie not think it necessary as well that equal action be taken with respect to the Chairpersons of the two other statutory corporations? Why the implied difference in treatment by Cabinet or by someone acting tacitly on behalf of Cabinet?

Are there regulatory agencies acting as watchdogs with respect not only to TSTT and PTSC but Udecott as well? Despite the above, however, it struck as heartening to know that there was the possibility that lawyers for Udecott were to seek an audience with the High Court Judge, Justice Mira Dean-Armorer, who had signed off on the consent order.

Nonetheless, the statement by Udecott that the company’s attorneys at law would “re-examine the consent order with a view to identifying any areas which might be adjusted to more fully achieve this balance which is the desired objective of both Udecott and the Commission of Inquiry” has to be viewed in the context of the assurance given by the Attorney General in the Senate last Thursday that while Udecott would be pursuing its challenge of the proceedings in the Court it would not be seeking a stay.

The Urban Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago, the AG had intimated “will not seek to stay the proceedings of the Commission, at least until such time as Professor Uff....has an opportunity to be heard in respect of the application for bias.” Despite this, however, mere hours later, as a report in yesterday’s Newsday pointed out, attorneys acting on behalf of Udecott approached the High Court prepared to argue the merits of an application for interim relief pending hearing of the substantial matter. Such arguments, the article indicated, could have climaxed in Justice Dean-Armorer granting a stay of the proceedings!

Since lawyers are briefed by clients and act on these briefs what is suggested by this is that Udecott may have been acting outside of the intent of the instructions of the Attorney General that it have Udecott’s lawyers return to court to enter a wholly new consent order which would replace that of last week’s. To use a cliche, just who is calling the shots? Or to put it another way: Who is the boss? Is it Cabinet, through Attorney General, John Jeremie, or is it the Urban Development Company, a statutory company, established by Government on behalf of the taxpayers of Trinidad and Tobago?