Rowley wins $100,000By Onika James Wednesday, February 4 2009
SACKED Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley was yesterday vindicated in the High Court after a judge ruled that the Integrity Commission had acted in bad faith and was guilty of misfeasance in public office when they compiled a report which led to a criminal investigation into the Landate affair.
The commission’s report was eventually struck down as illegal by Justice Maureen Rajnauth- Lee. She yesterday again ruled against the commission and had some strong words for the body in a 45-page judgment.
In an immediate response, Rowley called on the commission’s members to resign.
Rowley had challenged the way the commission dealt with its August 7, 2006 report on the allegations that material was siphoned from the Scarborough Hospital site to the private housing development at Mason Hall in Tobago owned by his wife Sharon Clark-Rowley.
The former Government minister had been granted leave in January 2007 to challenge the commission’s decision after he claimed he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the report was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
DPP Geoffrey Henderson had said he found there was sufficient basis for a police investigation based on the information contained in the commission’s file.
The police investigation followed a probe by a commission of inquiry set up in 2004 to determine if there was any impropriety in the removal of material to the Landate development.
After the report was struck down, Rowley proceeded with his lawsuit, pleading misfeasance on the part of the body when it sent the report to the DPP without hearing from him first.
“In all the circumstances, the court finds as a fact that the Integrity Commission had intended at its meeting of the 7th August, 2006 to forward the Intelysis Report to the Director of Public Prosecutions,” Rajnauth-Lee said.
She also said the commission disregarded steps contained in the report and the advice of its lawyer that Rowley should be presented with the findings of the investigations and allowed an opportunity to respond.
“I find at the very least that the Integrity Commission did not care whether section 38 of the (Integrity in Public Life) Act was being breached,” the judge ruled.
She also said in her judgment that “when the Integrity Commission referred its report to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the 7th August, 2006, it was recklessly indifferent as to whether the conduct was illegal.”
“In the judgment of the court, the Integrity Commission was subjectively reckless in the sense of not caring whether their conduct was illegal or not. I find, therefore, that the Integrity Commission had the requisite state of mind to satisfy the third requirement of tort of misfeasance in public office,” she said.
She also made what she called “troubling observations” that she did not accept the commission’s explanation as to why it wrote to the Prime Minister on October 19, 2004 to ascertain whether an inquiry was to be undertaken, and if so, the names of the persons to man the inquiry and their terms of reference.
“The court notes that the Integrity Commission is an independent constitutional body which ought to act independently pursuant to the constitutional and statutory powers and duties,” she said.
She also added that the commission had admitted it wrongly permitted its investigating officers to give evidence before the commission of inquiry in violation of section 35 of the Act.
“The Integrity Commission has extensive access to much confidential information and must treat seriously with its confidentiality obligations,” she ruled.
But she did say that she did not agree with Rowley’s claim that he has suffered damage to his reputation, adding that it was a bold assertion not supported by evidence or that the information his wife provided to the commission was either incriminatory of him or could have lead to incriminating evidence against him.
She also emphasised that based on the facts of the case “there was an unfair abuse of power on the part of the Integrity Commission” in leading the Rowleys to believe that the investigations into Landate were on-going and that Mrs Rowley had an obligation to provide information to the body.
Rajauth-Lee awarded the Diego Martin West MP damages in the sum of $100,000 with interest but said she did not consider an award of exemplary and or aggravated damages appropriate.
The commission was also ordered to pay Rowley’s cost of bringing the action to court.
The former minister’s legal battle against the commission began when a newspaper reported on December 17, 2006 that the police was investigating him.
Rowley said he was not aware, prior to the publication of the report, that the commission had referred its report to the DPP.
On February 1, 2008, the commission cleared Rowley of any wrongdoing and its registrar Martin Farrell penned a letter saying, “As a result of further investigation into this matter, the commission is now of the view that there is no longer any basis for suspecting that you may have conducted yourself in a manner that was in breach of your duties under the Act, and I have been directed to advise the Director of Public Prosecutions of this decision. This investigation is now at an end, and the commission thanks you for your cooperation.”
Speaking after the judge’s ruling was handed down, Rowley said now that the court had ruled he expected “people to do the decent thing and demit office,” in a veiled reference to the commission’s board members.
“This was never about money. To think that a judge could have given such a ruling against the Integrity Commission well, I say no more.”
The former minister said he was always confident of a win.
Representing Rowley were Reginald Armour SC, and Gilbert Peterson SC, Vanessa Gopaul, and Margaret Rose, instructed by Ria Joseph.
Christopher Hamel-Smith SC and Jonathan Walker instructed by Fanta Punch, represented the Integrity Commission.
Rowley recently appeared as a witness in the Uff commission of inquiry which was largely precipitated by his calls for greater scrutiny into Udecott affairs.
He was also fired by Prime Minister Patrick Manning for his assertions.
