ANDRE BAGOO Thursday, October 1 2009

CHAIRMAN of the Commission of Inquiry into Udecott, Professor John Uff has issued a confidential letter to president of the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) Winston Riley, asking him to respond to allegations that he tendered stolen documents in the proceedings and has an agenda against the state corporation.

In the confidential letter, dated May 5, the commissioners summed up the issues raised during the inquiry hearings thus far and asked Riley to respond to allegations made against him.

Among them are claims that in a witness statement filed by Riley he gave a “highly partial criticism of Udecott” and “deliberately ignored exculpatory material which would explain the true facts.”

Additionally, Riley is asked to respond to claims that he “decided to discount any explanation that comes from Udecott which does not suit your agenda”, that he chose “not to include in (his) statement any evidence whatsoever which shows Udecott in other than a negative light”.

Additionally, Riley is also asked to respond to whether or not the JCC “have produced stolen or unauthorised documents” for the proceedings. Word of the Salmon letter issued to Riley comes after word of a Salmon letter being issued to Sherrine Hart, the wife of the Udecott chairman, over allegations of a family connection to a Udecott contractor.

In a letter dated September 11 in response, Riley responds to each count listed. In relation to the allegation of stolen materials, Riley writes, “The documentation annexed to my witness statements or otherwise produced to the Commission by me consists of documentation received by the JCC from third parties without solicitation, encouragement or request.”

Noting that the JCC was part of a chorus that called for the proceedings, Riley continued, “It has not been uncommon for the JCC to be supplied with documentation relevant to the Commission’s mandate which it in turn has passed on to the Commission. Certainly at the time that I produced documents to the Commission I was not aware of any allegations that they had been stolen or their production unauthorised. Indeed as at the date hereof it has not been established as a matter of fact that this is so.”

In relation to claims that he deliberately excluded exculpatory information, Riley responds, “There is no proper basis for this criticism. In my statement I referred among other things, to material which was suggestive of wrongdoing, mismanagement and inefficiency at Udecott...I have not withheld or ignored exculpatory material which would explain the true facts.

“It is also important to note that if exculpatory facts are found to exist (which does not appear to be the case) Udecott, in the face of public criticism leading up to the establishment of the Commission, did not take the opportunity to make such facts available.”