Subject: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Mon May 16, 2011 7:25 pm
Rowley never called for the contractor to be charged, why?
Loads of material moved from hospital to Landate
Thursday, July 14 2005
AN enormous amount of material was removed from the Scarborough hospital project to the Landate project at Mason Hall in 2003, in some cases without a materials transfer slip.
The disclosure was made yesterday by Anthony Sookram, operations manager of P Ramnarine Rental Services based in Lowlands, Tobago. Sookram was giving evidence at the commission of inquiry into the Scarborough Hospital project at Winsure Building, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain.......
He said he transported an enormous amount of material from the Scarborough project to Landate. These included jobs on February 1, 4 5, 7, 13, 19 and 25, 2004. The jobs required him to transport thousands of concrete blocks, a variety of sand and mixed aggregrate as well as cement.........
Last edited by Honeylu on Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:56 am; edited 2 times in total
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Mon May 16, 2011 7:27 pm
Rowdy should be in jail...
A 2007 article quoted Nipdec’s Imtiaz Mohammed as claiming that Nipdec materials estimated at $5 million had been “improperly removed” from the project site.
Letters between the various parties show that Mair and Company—Nipdec’s attorneys—wrote former DPP Henderson in July 2008, seeking confirmation on whether the state intended to prosecute in connection with the report of the commission of enquiry on the alleged removal of materials from the hospital site. On July 17, Henderson replied that in September 2006, he had referred to the CoP, a report on the breaches of the code of conduct of the Integrity in Public Life act allegedly committed by MP Keith Rowley. Henderson also said in his correspondence to the commissioner he advised:
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Thu May 19, 2011 10:59 am
A "good friend" eh? A "good friend" who worked on your private mansion, A "good friend" who got the Cleaver Heights housing project and a "good friend" who rented a residential property from you in Tobago.
Quote :
In response to a direct question from commission chairman John Uff, Rowley said it was not widely known that Elias had put funds into his campaign. Rowley said Elias was a "good friend"
“He admitted that he was a friend of Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley and that one of the 15 residential properties he rents in Tobago belongs to Rowley. “
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Thu May 19, 2011 9:29 pm
From The UFF Report:
It is to be noted that at the date authority to proceed with the Cleaver Heights Development Project was given, in April 2005, the National Housing Authority6 was still in being and reporting to the Minister of Housing, Dr. Rowley.
On 1 December 2004, following "recent meetings" NHIC submitted a formal proposal for "Design Finance and Construction of Housing Units at Cleaver Woods North It is stated that the scheme has been developed "incorporating comments fi•om Town & Country Planning and EMA approvals are almost finalised". The attached outline specification states expressly that any treatment plant for treatment of effluent liquids is excluded fi-om the proposal and will be provided by the NHA; also that should T &TEC insist on an underground ducted network for electricity supply, this would be an additional cost.
The proposal included prices for three housing-types, being a single storey detached unit, a single storey duplex and a two storey town house. A price was also given for sale of 64 acres of land at $22,000,000 and for the development ofinfrastructme on the land at a price of$18,480,000, giving a total of $40,480,000. NHA commissioned two land valuation reports, one of which valued the undeveloped land at $l1m; the second valued the developed land at £30m. NHA do not appear to have pursued these valuations with NHIC and instead accepted the higher figmes offered by NHIC. Thus, the price for the specified house units and the land and infrastructme, including two provisional sums of $500,000 each, was correctly stated as $135,698,000.
There were then meetings and negotiations which resulted in a revised offer from NHIC on 21 January 2005, in which the price of the single storey Duplex units was reduced from $221,000 to $202,500 with adjustments to the specification. Other elements (land and infrastructure and provisional snms) remained nnaltered. On 22 March 2005 NHA wrote to NHIC stating that favourable consideration was being given to the proposal, requesting that NHIC should produce, inter alia, a cash flow projection" and additionally an "advance payment bond" of 10%. It is noted that the final decision requires Board approval and the letter concludes:
"Between the period of such approval and until a formal agreement is executed between the parties, the authority's letter of acceptance (which we will issue consequent on such approval) and your proposal dated January 22 2004 shall constitute a binding agreement between the parties".
NHIC responded on 31 March, accepting most of the matters in the letter of22 March but noting that the number of units had been amended to conform to town and Conntry Planning requirements. NHIC state also that
"The binding agreement between the parties should be the Authority's Letter of Acceptance and our proposal dated 1 December 2004, subsequently amended by a letter issued on 21 January 2005 (The proposal dated 22 January 2004 was subsequently superseded)" At this stage, the numbers of houses and the agreed fixed prices therefor was as follows Single storey detached 77 @$271,000 20,867,000 Single storey Duplex 74 @ $202,500 14,985,000 Two storey town houses 257 @ $221,000 56,797,000 Sub-total $ 92,649,000
The proposal to award the Contract to NHIC was put to the NHA Board in a note dated II April 2005, recommending the award of a "Joint Venture Agreement with NH International Limited" for 408 housing units for which the (correct) price of $92,649,000 is quoted. However, the total "fixed sum" for the project is stated as $143,449,000 with no further explanation.
The note was unanimously accepted at a Board Meeting on 15 Apri12005, the minutes of which repeated the Contract Sum as quoted in the Board Note. A "Pre-Construction Meeting No.1" was held on 25 April 2005 at which it is stated that NHA "has been requested to prepare the letter of award infavour ofNHIC based on the letter of 22 March 2005".
On 26 April 2005 NHA, after receiving Board approval, submitted a list of six housing projects including Cleaver Heights to be agreed by the Minister Dr. Keith Rowley who subsequently signed the letter of authorization. Finally, by letter dated 3 May 2005 NHA wrote to NHIC stating that:
"the Board of the Authority is pleased to award a Joint Venture Contract to your company for the design, finance and construction of building works at the above named site inclusive of all associated infrastructure necessary for the satisfactory completion and delivery of serviced housing units to the Authority according to the following schedule for the sum of $143,449,000".
During the Jannary 2009 hearing the Commission requested a submission from HDC on Cleaver Heights. This was eventually produced on 21 January, prepared by the acting Manager Director, Ms. Margaret Chow and Mr Reynold Patrick. The Submission provided info!1nation on the tender and award process, which had been carried out by HDC's predecessor, NHA; and drew attention to errors contained in the Letter of Award, which had been repeated in subsequent documents.
It is said that the errors were not detected by HDC personnel until late 2008. It was in September 2008 that the errors or discrepancies came to the public attention through a statement in Parliament by the Hon Prime Minister. This was followed by the enlargement of the Terms of Reference on 10 December 2008, introducing the First Cleaver Issues.
However, as noted above in the summary of correspondence, the sum quoted as the Contract Price in the letter of award of 3 May 2005 is $143,449,000. The letter does not refer to the provisional sums and accordingly the total of the cost of 408 houses plus the cost of land and infrastructure should have been $133,129,000. As recorded above, the "error" in totalling the relevant figures can be traced back to the note to the NHA Board dated 11 April 2005 in which the "fixed sum" for the project is stated as $143,449,000, apparently embodying two errors: (i) The erroneous statement of the figure for land and infrastructure as $40,800,000 instead of $40,480,000. (ii) The erroneous addition of the two figures involving a difference of $10,000,000.
Both these "errors" were carried through into the letter of 26 April 2005 where six projects and their "approximate budget" were approved by Minister Rowley; and then the same "errors" were carried forward into the mis-stated total figure set out in the letter of 3 May 2005. The Commission heard no explanation which could account for the figure of $143,449,000 going through the system without comment.
The Commissioners cannot understand how such "errors" could have gone unnoticed, given that there were several meetings between teams from NHA and NHIC which must have gone through the details of the proposed contract, including particularly the price.
Mr. Connon in cross-examination was taken through the valuations where it was noted that the prices per house units in Valuation No.9 total up to the correct Contract Price. However, the prices per unit in Valuation Nos. 1 to 8 had been deliberately inflated in order to cause the summary to equal the erroneous Contract Sum of $143,449,000340 Mr.Connon confirmed that this change was not accidental:
"Q: Do you think that that is something that you could do by accident?
A: Well no, it is not an accident. Obviously, he did change the figures, so if you want to use the word "deliberately" then yes.
Q: Is there another word you would use besides deliberately to describe what it is?
A: I don't want to argue with you about it.
Q: In other words, he did it intentionally?
A: Yes."
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:26 pm
Why Rowley don’t resign for corruptly removing material from the Tobago Hospital to his private property.
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:45 pm
Rowley/Landate Commission ends CAROL QUASH Saturday, August 6 2005
PUBLIC hearing of the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of impropriety against Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley as it relates to the construction of the Scarborough Hospital, and the award of State contracts to NH International (Caribbean) Ltd (NHIC) and Warner Construction Ltd, yesterday came to an end. During the last month, the commission, chaired by retired judge Annestine Sealey, heard evidence from several witnesses. Yesterday’s sitting was for the purpose of hearing closing addresses by attorneys for the various individuals and representatives of State and private institutions who had given evidence during the inquiry.
Rowley, who gave evidence on Wednesday and Thursday in response to the allegations against him, sat in the public gallery for yesterday’s morning session. In his address to commissioners Sealey, Dr Chandrabhan Sharma and Eustace Hobson, attorney Robin Montano, who represented Barrington “Skippy” Thomas, submitted that the evidence showed that materials were moved from the hospital project site to the Landate project site and that no payment had been made for them. Montano said he was “baffled” as to why the commission had not requested a copy of the cheque if payments had been made. The attorney said he was also curious about the non-appearance before the commission of Rowley’s wife, Sharon, the reported owner of Landate.
According to Montano, the commission needed to decide on three issues: Was there movement of materials from the hospital site to Landate? Were those materials illegally moved? Was there evidence of impropriety that needed to be further investigated? He advised the commission to ignore the minister’s claim that the allegations were politically motivated. Rowley’s attorney, Gilbert Petersen, submitted that the evidence, apart from that of Thomas, showed that the minister had absolutely no involvement in the procurement process of State contracts.
He insisted that the evidence of Thomas was not true, highlighting the fact that Rowley and Thomas were “political opponents.” Petersen said Thomas was of a questionable character. Attorneys for the commission, Trevor Lee SC, Andre des Vignes and Morris Valere, gave the commission extensive directives and recommendations for dealing with the evidence presented to it. The commission is expected to submit a written report by August 20.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:53 pm
Today in Parliament Rowley said “The Landate Project was only a Road” So tell me if these materials’ sounding like is for a “Road”?
This info comes from several gate passes:
NH International Caribbean Limited New Scarborough Hospital Project 27/03/04 License number: TBN 4312 Vehicle driver: Approval is hereby given for the items listed below to leave this construction site. 3 pallets of 8x8x16 concrete blocks for Landate Project. H Belfon”
ì27/03/04 Vehicle: Truck License number: TBC 2779 Vehicle driver: Approval is hereby given for the items listed to leave this construction site:
6.8 m³ of red sand for Landate Project. H. Belfon”
27/03/04 License number: TBM 7312 Approval is hereby given for the items listed to leave this construction site: 3 pallets of 8x8x16 blocks for Landate Project 6.8 m³ of red sand for Landate Project
29/03/04 License number: TAW 4789 Vehicle driver: Moona Ramroop Approval is hereby given for the items listed to leave this construction site: 1 load red plastering sand, 5x4 m³ for Landate Project TS 56557 H. Belfon
29/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 20 lengthsó1½î PVC pipe for Landate Project H. Belfon
29/03/04 License number: TAW 4789 Vehicle driver: M. Ramroop 35 bags cement for Landate Project.”
ì29/03/04 3 pallets 6x8x16 concrete blocks for Landate Project
01/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 Mr. Ramroop 5.4 m³ 1½î stone for Landate Project H. Belfon
01/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 5.4 m³ of red plastering sand for Landate Project MTS 5653
01/04/04 License number: TBM 7312 10 sheets - ply æîx4x8 for Landate Project 1 drum of chemical from release agent. H. Belfon
05/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 5.4 m³ 1½î stone for Landate Project
05/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 5.4 m³ sharp sand 2.5 m³ sharp sand”
06/04/04 M. Ramroop 3 concrete cylinders 450mm for Landate Project 30 pieces - 2x2x12 20 pieces ñ 1x12 RPP
08/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 5.4 m³ plastering sand to Landate Project
22/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 Half sharp sand and aggregate for Landate Project 5.4 m³ plastering sand to Landate Project
26/04/04 5.4 m³, ½î aggregate and sharp sand for Landate Project 29/04/04 License number: TAW 4789 35 bags cement 1 pallet, 10 sheets 4x8xæ form ply
06/05/04 License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 30 pieces ó 1x8x12 40 pieces ó 1x12x12 30 pieces ó 2x2x12 to Landate Project from plant department, via SHP
License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 5.4 m³ plastering sand for Landate Project License number: TAW 4789 M. Ramroop 1 pallet cement for Landate Project
License number: TBM 7312 190 sheets mesh 2.5 tonnes mild steel rods 60mmx6m 2 pieces angles to Mason Hall Project.
9 rolls plastic-coated chain link wire 90 pounds plastic-coated wire 20 pieces ñ 2x2x20 lumber to Landate Project.
NH International Material Transfer Slip No. 55046, from Scarborough Hospital Project to Landate Project: 19 x 6 concrete mixer. November 26, 2003.
Scarborough Hospital Project: Material Transfer Slip No. 55099: 3 pallets of concrete blocks; 3 pallets of 8” blocks; 1.5 metres of plastering sand.
Material Transfer Slip dated December 02, 2003, No. 56402. From Scarborough Hospital Project to Lamsden Project: Item: 3 pallets of 8x8x16 concrete blocks; 3 pallets, 8x8x16 concrete blocks; 10 bags of cement; and five lengths of PVC pipe.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:23 am
Rowley: I have nothing to hide Clint Chan Tack Friday, October 15 2004
HOUSING MINISTER Dr Keith Rowley yesterday declared that he was innocent of UNC allegations of corruption in the Scarborough Regional Hospital, had the evidence to prove his innocence and challenged the Opposition to repeat its charges without the cloak of parliamentary privilege. Rowley also said he was the target of a vicious UNC smear campaign. During yesterday’s Budget debate in the House of Representatives, Opposition Chief Whip Ganga Singh caused an uproar when he claimed to have documents which proved that Rowley had a close relationship with hospital contractor, NH International Ltd (a company owned by Emile Elias) and that company was transferring labour and materials from the Scarborough project to a private sector land development project which Rowley is undertaking in Mason Hall, Tobago. Government had to use its parliamentary majority to force the Opposition to allow Prime Minister Patrick Manning to give the undertaking that a full investigation would be carried out and a report would subsequently be laid in Parliament.
Addressing a news conference during the tea break, Dr Rowley confirmed that his family had started a commercial land development project at Mason Hall in 2003 but said it was being undertaken by Tobago contractor Warner Construction and NH International was subcontracted by Warner to handle a small part of the project. “We have a fixed contract with Warner to do this development as per the engineering design and we make progress payments along the way. To date, we have made significant payments to Warner and the project is still incomplete and we are proceeding as per the contract. Our responsibility is to pay Warner as our project progresses. We have no relationship with NH International with respect to contracting for us. The Minister said he had “no responsibility to account for any material from the hospital site because I am sure the contractors involved who work on that site would be able to speak for themselves on their own conduct.” Rowley said he welcomed any investigation into the matter, “Ganga Singh made the allegations and presented documents supposed to be incriminating and demanded an investigation.
Prime Minister Manning got up and offered a full and comprehensive investigation, but the Government had to use its majority to get the Prime Minister to say that in the Parliament. The Opposition resisted having the Prime Minister make the commitment. That will tell you something. They are not interested in the truth or in any investigation. All they are interested in is trying to smear persons for political benefit. I intend to cooperate fully with any investigation. I have nothing to fear, nothing to hide. I have broken no law.” He said Singh had a habit of activating “the sensitivities of the media and the national community,” having done so regarding his (Singh) involvement with InnCogen and the recent tea room incident between Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma and himself (Rowley). “I challenge him to come outside of the Parliament. Outside of the cover of parliamentary privilege and accuse me of any wrongdoing in Tobago, on this project or any other project belonging to me or the State.” Rowley said he provided Manning with all the details of his private sector project and these details have also been disclosed to the Integrity Commission.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:54 am
I will clear my good name RIA TAITT Monday, November 8 2004
A DEFIANT Dr Keith Rowley vowed yesterday to fight “with every muscle in my body” to defend his name and assured his constituents that he would be vindicated by the findings of a Commission of Inquiry. Declaring that everything else, including his position as a Cabinet Minister, is temporary, but his good name is permanent, the Diego Martin West MP accounted to his constituents on the two major controversies affecting him — the Mason Hall Development Project and the Parliament tearoom brawl. He said the allegations were the result of an orchestrated attempt to damage him, and by extension the PNM. Rowley, who could be facing an assault charge as a result of the complaint filed by Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma, declaring that if he ended up in court for the tearoom affair, he would “welcome it.”
“I would love to see my lawyers ask all the relevant questions,” he declared in his address at a constituency meeting at the Point Cumana Community Centre. Rowley insisted that he was innocent and claimed he had a verbal altercation with Sharma and was subsequently portrayed as “some ruffian” beating people in the Parliament and putting the Opposition MP in hospital. “I am from Mason Hall and when I beat Sharma, Sharma will know, and you will know, and there would be no question about it!” he thundered, to an appreciative audience. “Imagine me, a big ‘hard back’ man, want to beat Sharma, and I slap him and fling a teacup at him?” he asked incredulously, as the crowd roared its approval. On the Mason Hall/Landate issue, Rowley stressed that he had removed himself from the project, which was being handled entirely by his wife.
He conceded, that unlike Basdeo Panday, he was prepared to admit his wife was his, and therefore, he had a beneficial interest in anything she did. “Until the law is changed where my wife can’t own land, can’t develop property, can’t hire a contractor, Ganga Singh and Panday and the whole seaband could go to hell,” the Diego Martin West MP asserted. “And I don’t have to wait for Rootsman to tell me where my wife get the money,” he said, quoting the words of the calypso “Is she nanny give she that.” He said his wife was an attorney with a leading law firm. Apart from that, he had been continuously employed for the last 30 years.
“I don’t go to whore houses . . . I don’t go to casinos, so if I want a load of sand, I could pay for it,” he declared to applause. Rowley said since 1986 his grandfather had given him the land on which his Mason Hall home was built and he had waited 31 years to construct his home. Apart from that property, which was constructed while he was in Opposition, Rowley said he personally had not developed one foot of land anywhere else. Rowley reminded his supporters that when the UNC couldn’t deal with him, it used its power as the government to throw him out of the Parliament for two months. Now, it was attempting to use its power as Opposition to put him out of the Parliament again, he claimed.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:04 pm
Rowley changing Tunes!
Thursday October 14 2004 at a news conference:
“Dr Rowley confirmed that his family had started a commercial land development project at Mason Hall in 2003 but said it was being undertaken by Tobago contractor Warner Construction and NH International was subcontracted by Warner to handle a small part of the project. “We have a fixed contract with Warner to do this development as per the engineering design and we make progress payments along the way. To date, we have made significant payments to Warner and the project is still incomplete and we are proceeding as per the contract. Our responsibility is to pay Warner as our project progresses. We have no relationship with NH International with respect to contracting for us. “
Rowley stressed that he had removed himself from the project, which was being handled entirely by his wife.
“Until the law is changed where my wife can’t own land, can’t develop property, can’t hire a contractor, Ganga Singh and Panday and the whole seaband could go to hell,”
So it gone from “We” to “My Wife” within one month!! Fast-forward to Saturday 3rd March 2012 Parliament debate: It gone from a commercial land development project to “Landate is only a Road”
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:00 pm
Was it payback?
When Elias rented the property from Rowley after being awarded the Tobago Hospital contract?
It is a well established Fact that Rowley and Elias are good friends What was the rental cost of the property?? Was it market value or above market value?
Did Rowley declare this income to the Integrity Commission?
A closer look at this transaction need to be done to establish if the money went from hand to hand and returned to Elias?
Did Rowley take the rental money give it to his wife who in-turn gives it back to the contractor for the Landate Project?
Quote: ELIAS:;
“He admitted that he was a friend of Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley and that one of the 15 residential properties he rents in Tobago belongs to Rowley. “
Quote: In response to a direct question from commission chairman John Uff, Rowley said it was not widely known that Elias had put funds into his campaign. Rowley said Elias was a "good friend"
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:54 pm
This is the description of “Landate”
Excerpt from Rowley Case against the Integrity Commission
Mrs. Clark-Rowley, is the owner and developer of Eight Point Eight Six Zero Eight (8.8608) hectares of land situate at Mason Hall, Les Coteaux Road in the Island of Tobago. The development project thereon is commonly referred to as the ‘Landate Project’ or ‘Landdate Project.’
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:47 pm
He said he learnt that NHIC were the subcontractors after the fact, and maintained that he played no part in the project nor was he aware of the details of the contract between Warner and NHIC.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:53 pm
E-Mail..
Quote :
From: John Connon, jconnon@nhic.tt.com Date: Monday, September 29, 2003, 5.09 p.m To: Jim Duffy CC: Jeff Grey Subject: Landate
Jim, Simon Ragbir will be in Tobago from tomorrow to start the above at Mason Hall. He is arriving on the 10.00 a.m. flight. I went through the gully culvert with him and gave him the sketches and photographs you handed to me on Friday. I spoke to the Minister and told him that there would be additional fill in the gully. He may have some material near his residence, but we need to check the access, otherwise it would have to come from Studley Park. I spoke to Tony Romain, he is to let us have some rebar details. It seems to me though that we will have to modify the design to suit. Simon can start to get the ground being constructed so that we can start filling. I told him that he will live at Rowley’s flat that we rent already.
I told him to contact you regarding requisitioning of materials, plan, petty cash. He has his own transport. At some stage we have to agree rates. Simon has a copy of the un-priced bill of quantities. Rowley says he will be on site Saturday. We will probably require the D6 back next week. Access may be obtained over Balfourís land. Apparently no problem providing feasibility otherwise on a one-off basis of the made up road, until we complete the culvert and filling. Suggest you take Simon up there and get him started. We ordered some materials for a small site office.
End
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:05 pm
The Commission stated that there was an abundance of evidence that materials and machinery were removed from the Scarborough Hospital site to the Landate Development between October 1 2003 and October 16, 2004.
The Commission said that having reviewed the testimony of all persons appearing before it, together with the exhibits, it found both in Law, and in fact, that the unfixed material on the Scarborough Hospital site " is, and was," the property of the employer (NIPDEC). It stated therefore that the "pretended claim" by NHIC that it owned the material, was "both unfounded and unjustified".
In the circumstances, it said, its observations and recommendations were as follows:
1) "That from the testimony of the witnesses...that the appropriate authorities should visit the provisions of Sections 2,3,4, and 21 of the Larceny Act Ch. 11.12 with a view to addressing the illegal Act (if so found by them) committed by NHIC by the removal of NIPDEC’s materials from the Scarborough Hospital site to the Landate Development Project".
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:15 am
Udecott’s behind Land Date scandal By Andre Bagoo Sunday, November 4 2012
Did he ever exchange favours with NHIC?
“Absolutely not and my wife and I had no involvement with NHIC. My wife and I had a contract with Warner Construction which started off at $1.9 million and at the end of the day she ended up paying $3.2 million for that. All of which was paid for by her out of her resources,” he said.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:36 am
A tale of blocks, ply, steel and sand By Andre Bagoo Sunday, October 21 2012
TOBAGO is a land of mystery. For centuries, many have tried to solve the riddle of the famous tombstone at Plymouth, which has puzzled generations of locals and visitors alike. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that even though a slew of new investigations were announced this month by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar into a series of million-dollar projects in Tobago, there remains one Tobago project which, for more than eight years, has remained shrouded in uncertainty.
The mystery tomb is said to hark back to 1783, but this mystery dates back to between October 1, 2003 to October 16, 2004.
Although millions in State funds were spent for a Commission of Inquiry, an Integrity Commission investigation, a Fraud Squad investigation and a series of High Court cases which eventually saw one panel of the Integrity Commission resign, the fundamental questions in relation to the private Land Date real estate development project at Mason Hall, Tobago, have never been satisfactorily answered.
The Integrity Commission cleared Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley, the Tobago-born former Housing Minister and now Opposition Leader, of any wrongdoing under the Integrity in Public Life Act.
Still, nobody can seem to answer the questions: what materials were removed from the Scarborough Hospital to the private site which was linked to Rowley? What was their value? At whose instruction were they moved? At what cost? Why did this incident happen in the first place?
Even the Annestine Sealey-chaired Commission of Inquiry set up to probe the issue, in its Report of August 18, 2005, which has been obtained by Sunday Newsday, was unable to say with any degree of certainty what materials were removed and what was their value. Time and time again, Rowley’s opponents (both in the Government and sometimes even in his own party) have raised the Land Date issue, threatening to “expose” the Diego Martin West MP. This occurred again two weeks ago during the Budget debate when Minister of National Security Jack Warner read a paragraph of the report into the Hansard. The week before, Minister of Sport Anil Roberts had also hinted at the contents of the Sealey Report. Former Justice Minister Herbert Volney, before he was sacked for “serious misrepresentation” to the Cabinet, in March raised the issue, as did Attorney General Anand Ramlogan in 2010.
Yet, though the report was promised to be laid in Parliament by former Prime Minister Patrick Manning, it does not seem to have ever been tabled. Instead, it appears to have at one stage been quietly filed away at the Parliament Library, for reference by MPs. Neither the previous PNM government, nor the current administration has released it to the public in full. And the public is nowhere closer to the truth today than it was eight years ago.
At the heart of the report is a still unexplained finding that, “there was an abundance of evidence that materials and machinery were removed from the Scarborough Hospital site to the Land Date Development from October 1, 2003 to October 16, 2004”.
In an annexure to the 96-page report, two simple letters list some of the materials which were removed from the hospital site. The first list is in a letter to the owner of a truck that transported materials. The list read:
2004 March 29 1 load red plastering sand
5.4 M3
2004 March 29 20 lengths – 1 ½” PVC pipe
35 bags cement
2004 April 01 5.4 M3 (1 ½ ”) Stone
5.4 M3 red plastering sand
2004 April 05 5.4 M3 (1 ½ ”) Stone
5.4 M3 Sharp sand
2.5 M3 Sharp sand
2004 April 06 3 Concrete Cylinders
450mm
30 pcs – 2 x 2 x 12
20 pcs – 1 x 12 RPP
2004 April 08 5.4 M3 plastering sand
2004 April 22 5.4 M3 plastering sand
2004 April 26 5.4 M3 ½ aggregate
and sharp sand
2004 April 29 35 bags cement
1 pallet, 10 sheets
4 x 8 x ¾ form ply
2004 May 06 30 pieces – 1 x 8 x 12
40 pieces – 1 x 12 x 12
30 pieces – 2 x 2 x 12
5.4 M3 plastering sand
1 pallet cement
A second list, in another letter to another owner of a truck, listed:
2004 March 27 3 pallets of 8 x 8 x 16
Concrete blocks
2004 March 27 6.8 M3 of red sand
2004 March 27 6.8 M3 of red sand
2004 March 29 3 pallets 6 x 8 x 16
Concrete blocks
2004 April 1 10 sheets – ply ¾” x 4 x 8
1 drum chemical from
Release agent
2004 May 06 190 sheets mesh
2.5 tonnes mild steel
Rods – 60 mm x 6 m
2 pcs. Angles iron.
2004 June 05 9 rolls plastic-coated
Chain-link wire
90 lbs plastic coated wire
20 pcs – 2 x 2 x 20 lumber
2004 June 11 3 pallets 8 x 8 x 8” concrete
Blocks
2 pallets 8” concrete blocks
These lists appeared to coincide with some information given by Ganga Singh, the former Opposition MP, in Parliament.
This month marks exactly eight years since Singh alleged in the 2004 Budget debate that materials were siphoned from the site of the Scarborough Hospital site to Land Date, a property whose owner was listed as Rowley’s wife Sharon, an attorney, and in which Rowley said he had a beneficial interest.
On October 14, 2004, Singh said, “Mr Speaker, we on this side require a thorough investigation of the Scarborough Hospital and Land Date Project and that all contracts awarded to Emile Elias by this Government, when Dr Rowley was the Minister of Planning and Development and Minister of Housing, ought to be investigated.” Coincidentally, this request would largely mirror the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry set up at the behest of the Office of the then Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
Four years later, after Singh’s theatrical bombshell, the Integrity Commission would pen a sedate letter, informing Rowley he was cleared of any wrongdoing under the Integrity in Public Life Act.
Registrar Martin Farrell wrote, “As a result of further investigations 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 (Integrity in Public Life Act 2000) and I have been directed to advise the Director of Public Prosecutions of this decision.” The letter ended, “this investigation is now at an end and the Commission thanks you for your cooperation.” The Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey Henderson, closed the case.
Rowley has said, “I was exonerated from any unlawful conduct of any nature.”
When the scandal first broke out in Parliament in October 2004, Rowley told reporters, “We have a fixed contract with Warner (Construction and Sanitation Ltd) to handle a small part of the project. We have a fixed contract with Warner to do this development as per the engineering design and we make progress payments along the way. To date, we have made significant payments to Warner and the project is still incomplete and we are proceeding as per the contract. Our responsibility is to pay Warner as our project progresses. We have no relationship with NH International (Elias’s firm) with respect to contracting for us.” Later, at a political platform, Rowley said his wife largely handled the Mason Hall project.
Of the then Opposition UNC, Rowley said, “All they are interested in is trying to smear persons for political benefit. I intend to cooperate fully with any investigation. I have nothing to fear, nothing to hide. I have broken no law.”
While it criticised his conduct in some respects, the Sealey Report made no specific adverse finding in relation to Rowley in its recommendations.
At the same time, the report of the inquiry – which cost millions – did not answer questions such as the complete quantum of materials removed from the hospital site or the value of materials removed or who paid for their transport from Trinidad (where NH is based) to Tobago.
Rowley’s wife, in whose name ownership of Land Date fell, did not give evidence at the inquiry. The commissioners – Sealey, Dr Chandrabhan Sharma and Eustace Hobson – said they had no power to compel the attendance of certain witnesses or to probe the private documents in relation to Land Date.
The commissioners found other witnesses. But these witnesses played Pontius Pilate. A quantity surveyor saw nothing. A site engineer was unaware of the movement of materials. Yet, the report found that, “transport contractors would on instruction load trucks with materials, almost on a daily basis, and remove them to the Land Date Development at Mason Hall, Tobago.
“Neither the removal of materials in this fashion nor the system were ever disputed or contested. The Commission accepts the evidence of removal of these and other materials as true and correct.”
If the witnesses did not know what was going on, neither did the commissioners. They admitted in their report that they did not have all the documents. The commissioners said, “Not all delivery slips have been produced and accounted for.” The lawyers did not have enough evidence to find the quantum of what had been removed. Similar evidence, apparently available elsewhere, could not be adduced.
“The Commission finds itself bereft of evidence of the total amount of material and its worth which were removed from the Scarborough Hospital Site, as most of the delivery slips, bills of lading and order slips relating to the removal of such materials removed are in the possession of the Integrity Commission,” the Commissioners said. “An attempt by this Commission to verify these deficiencies was met by a submission from counsel for Dr Keith Rowley that the same was prohibited but counsel for the Commission was of the opposite view.” The evidence of a witness summoned by the Integrity Commission who had given evidence was expunged from the record. The same Integrity Commission investigation would, years later, botch the entire investigatory process.
The same Integrity Commission would also – with its secret evidence withheld from the Commission of Inquiry – commit the spectacular misstep of not letting Rowley respond to the allegations against him before referring the matter to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
After this huge misstep, the Integrity Commission would later clear Rowley. But while Rowley was cleared, the same is not clear in relation to the contractor involved.
The contractor at the Scarborough Hospital, which was then a $135 million project, was NHIC. NHIC was said to have been subcontracted by Warner Construction and Sanitation to do work on Land Date.
But if some witnesses came to the inquiry to say they knew nothing, NHIC knew a lot but chose to stay away. The company washed its hands of the inquiry and withdrew from the proceedings, alleging bias.
NHIC was alleged to have inappropriate ties to Rowley, allegations which were never substantiated in court. NHIC at one point claimed all materials on the hospital site belonged to them and therefore there was no issue raised by the removal to another site where they also happened to have work. But the Sealey Report found otherwise.
The report noted the contract for the project employed FIDIC terms of contract, and one FIDIC provision explicitly stated materials belong not to the contractor but the owner, “when it is delivered to the site” (Article 7:7 (a) FIDIC). NIPDEC was the project manager of the hospital project and thus, the real owner of the materials listed.
“On a clear interpretation of this paragraph, it is inconceivable that the materials sent to Land Date were owned by NHIC as claimed by them. It is the view of the Commission that such an admission is an indictment against NHIC of any professed claim.
“The Commission has considered the factual position as above and concludes that in law, in light of Article 7:7 that all unfixed material brought on to the site is the property of the employer and its removal could, in the circumstances, attract an over-view of the criminal law and in civil law for breach of contract.”
As a result, recommendations were made that, “the appropriate authorities should visit the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 21 of the Larceny Act Ch. 11.12 with a view to addressing the illegal Act (if so found) committed by NHIC by the removal of NIPDEC’s materials from the Scarborough Hospital site to the Land Date Development Project.”
While the commissioners made strong recommendations in relation to the absent party, NHIC, there was no recommendation to a party who testified before it: Rowley.
But specific mention of Rowley came on page 29, where the Commission criticised him, saying, “The Commission is of the view that having regard to his ministerial position, whatever part Dr Rowley played, it displayed a total lack of discretion and the Commission advises that he should be more sanguine in his relations in matters concerning the development of the project as further issues of impropriety may be raised especially because he had beneficial interest to which he has admitted.”
The Commission also criticised Rowley for his conduct at a hearing in front of the chairman in relation to the allegations of a former UNC candidate, Barrington “Skippy” Thomas.
Thomas alleged that Rowley, on October 4, 2003, at Land Date, said, “I gave Emile Elias that project. He (Elias) told me he will handle my project for me for free, however, you have to work that out then get it done.” Paraphrasing, the Commission said, “a summary of the allegations is that NHIC, via Emile Elias, was doing the works at the Land Date site ‘for free’ and as repayment for works given by Dr Keith Rowley as Minister of Planning to the NHIC, i.e. for past favors.” The claim was rejected.
“Having regard to the serious animosity existing between the two persons, it is unlikely that such a conversation took place in the presence of Rev Thomas,” the Commission found. In the report it notes that Thomas was convicted of unspecified crimes on seven occasions. “The acceptance of the evidence of Dr Rowley in this instance on a balance of probabilities would negate any allegations of impropriety as was alleged by Rev. Thomas.”
The report further stated, “The Commission has had the misfortune to have been confronted with the most irresponsible behaviour from both Reverend Junior Barrington Thomas and Dr Rowley, in which the most vitriolic accusations were made against each other in the great political divide”.
The Commissioners added, “Unfortunately, the Commission did not have the judicial power to impose contempt proceedings on either or both of them.”
The Sealey Inquiry had a similar view of its powers in relation to the question of summoning Rowley’s wife Sharon.
“The Commission was constrained by reason of the alleged private contract between Sharon Rowley and Warner Construction and Sanitation and between Warner and NHIC, and could not by reasons of its terms of reference fully investigate or demand documents of or from Sharon Rowley,” the report said.
Since NHIC officials – including Elias – did not appear before the Commission to give any evidence, the Commission was “left with what appears to be the uncontroversial evidence of Reverend Junior Barrington Thomas”. At last, here was a witness who said he actually saw something. But his evidence could not be accepted as reliable.
The Commission nonetheless provided a chronology of events. It said Sharon Rowley entered into a contract with Warner Construction and Sanitation Limited (Warner) on September 22, 2003, for the infrastructure works at a cost of $2,361,190.
On September 23, 2003, Warner invited NHIC to review a plan and design of Romaine and Associates Limited and to submit a Bill of Quantities and an offer to effect the said infrastructure works contracted to Warner.
On September 25, 2003, NHIC submitted an offer of $1,525,267 which was accepted by Warner.
On October 1, 2003, an NHIC site foreman commenced the said works and, “he was given free accommodation by NHIC at Rowley’s apartment and a car allowance of $1,500. He admits that Rowley visited the site from time to time but never gave him any instructions, ‘whatsoever’.”
The report continued, “Nine applications for payments were alleged to have been made by NHIC to Warner and to be paid by Sharon Rowley. Warner stated five payments were made totalling $1,795,000, whereas another witness stated $1.5 million was paid.”
It would seem more and more layers of mystery and intrigue would later shroud the issue.
Rowley was victorious in suing the Integrity Commission for how it handled the probe into the project.
That probe saw commissioners of the independent body write then Prime Minister Manning with seeming haste on October 19, 2004, days after the allegations rose in Parliament, on the issue.
Rowley later alleged former PNM Attorney General John Jeremie had gotten access to a confidential Integrity Commission report on the mater, a claim Jeremie denied.
The same Integrity Commission, comprised of lawyer members, later referred the matter to the DPP without giving Rowley a chance to respond to the allegations. The High Court declared the Commission guilty of the tort of misfeasance and bad faith. Rowley was awarded almost $1 million in legal costs, and the Integrity Commission resigned.
All of this, but no explanation of why those concrete blocks, steel rods, ply and sand were removed. While they are solid, everything else is mystery.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:39 pm
He admitted that he knew of the project, but not its details, explaining bluntly that “I know a lot of my wife’s business.” He said his wife Sharon Clarke-Rowley owned the project. He said the land cost half-a-million dollars. Asked where his wife got the money from to purchase it, Rowley appeared astounded but over-rode his lawyers objections, opting to answer. He informed Montano, in a mocking tone, that she was a professional citizen of TT, conducting business under the laws of the country. “She earns money and spends it under the laws. She is gainfully employed.” Asked if it was obtained under a mortgage, Rowley said yes. He explained that it was obtained on their Goodwood matrimonial home with a bank in TT, and they share mortgage payments.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:41 pm
SHARON ROWLEY PLEASE EXPLAIN?
Rowley said: My wife and I had a contract with Warner Construction which started off at $1.9 million and at the end of the day she ended up paying $3.2 million for that. All of which was paid for by her out of her resources,”
Warner Construction said: “Sharon Rowley entered into a contract with them for the sum of $2.361 million
Warner Construction said: “They sub-contracted NHIC for $1.5 million
Warner Construction said: “, “Nine applications for payments were alleged to have been made by NHIC to Warner and to be paid by Sharon Rowley. Warner stated five payments were made totalling $1.795 Million
NHIC's Quantity Surveyor Mark Hood said: “$1.5 million was paid.”
The Commission could not get access to the contract because it was an alleged “Private Contract” between Sharon Rowley, Warner Construction and NHIC.
And since Rowley Christmas wish was that “we allow the gift of honesty to prevail over lies and deception” I’m calling on Sharon Rowley to make the Contract, her source of income and proof of payment/s public.
If we take the lowest figure $1.5 million and divide into months from the start date of the contract September 22, 2003, to the date the Commission heard evidence of $1.5 million being paid, July 2005, that is 22 months
$1.5 million divided by 22 months = $68,000 per month……Where did Sharon Rowley get $68,000 a month from? And remember she was also helping Rowley pay back the $500,000 mortgage they took out on their Goodwood home.
Where was Sharon Rowley working between 2003 and 2005? And what was her monthly income?
Last edited by Honeylu on Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:37 am
If we take the lowest figure $1.5 million and divide into months from the start date of the contract September 22, 2003, to the date the Commission heard evidence of $1.5 million being paid, July 2005, that is 22 months
$1.5 million divided by 22 months = $68,000 per month……Where did Sharon Rowley get $68,000 a month from? And remember she was also helping Rowley pay back the $500,000 mortgage they took out on their Goodwood home.
Where was Sharon Rowley working between 2003 and 2005? And what was her monthly income?
Honeylu Moderator
Posts : 571 Join date : 2011-01-27
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:21 pm
Last December, Henderson had said he found there was sufficient basis for a police investigation, based on the information contained in the commission’s file.
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:43 pm
Police probe into NHIC stalls.
Byline Author: Gail Alexander Article Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 Allegations of removal of material from Tobago Hospital site
Former MP Ganga Singh has called for answers on the status of an investigation—recommended in 2005—into the allegation of larceny against NH International (Caribbean) Ltd
Former MP Ganga Singh has called for answers on the status of an investigation—recommended in 2005—into the allegation of larceny against NH International (Caribbean) Ltd
, in connection with the removal of materials from the Scarborough Hospital project site. The investigation stems from recommendations in the 2005 Sealey Commission of Inquiry report into allegations of removal of the items from the site. (See box below).
However, a recent letter from acting DPP Carla Browne-Antoine states that “it appears” there has been “no police investigation of the allegation of larceny against NHIC (sic).” Singh, an attorney, said, “This matter spans the tenure of two attorneys general, two directors of Public Prosecution and two police commissioners, yet there has been no closure.” He said the issue arose in 2005 while Attorney General John Jeremie was in office and continued under the last AG, Bridgid Annisette-George. The latter resigned in May.
“The issue also arose when former DPP Geoffrey Henderson was in office and continues under his successor, Acting DPP Carla Browne-Antoine,” Singh added. “It also straddled the administrations of former Police Commissioner Trevor Paul and acting CoP Philbert James.” A 2007 article quoted Nipdec’s Imtiaz Mohammed as claiming that Nipdec materials estimated at $5 million had been “improperly removed” from the project site.
Letters between the various parties show that Mair and Company—Nipdec’s attorneys—wrote former DPP Henderson in July 2008, seeking confirmation on whether the state intended to prosecute in connection with the report of the commission of enquiry on the alleged removal of materials from the hospital site. On July 17, Henderson replied that in September 2006, he had referred to the CoP, a report on the breaches of the code of conduct of the Integrity in Public Life act allegedly committed by MP Keith Rowley. Henderson also said in his correspondence to the commissioner he advised:
“...As a separate matter but arising from the same project you should be aware that a Commission of Enquiry that looked into the awarding of contracts by Government organisations to NH International (Caribbean) Ltd (NHIC) and Warner Construction and Sanitation Ltd has already found NHIC to be in violation of the various provisions of the Larceny Act Chp (11-12) and separately recommended that this matter be pursued.” Henderson’s letter stated that he had written to the commissioner requesting that he apprise him of the status of that investigation. Henderson also stated that, “...The investigation into the taking of items from the project remains alive (sic).”
‘Allegations not pursued’
However, by letter of February 12, Browne-Antoine stated that the DPP’s office was informed in August 2008, that the focus of investigations had been Rowley and, “As a result the allegations of NHIC’s violation of the Larceny Act was not then pursued (sic).” The ag DPP’s letter stated that her office was informed of this in writing by ACP Glenroy Woodley of the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau (ACIB) who handled the allegations.
According to the acting DPP’s letter, Woodley indicated that Inspector Bucchan of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was appointed to investigate the allegations against NHIC and that that investigation was expected to be completed by the end of September, 2008. However, the acting DPP said that then—February—her office had not received any report from Bucchan or the ACIB on the outcome of that investigation.
Browne-Antoine’s letter further ther stated: “I have spoken with Inspector Bucchan and he informed me that he was not given any documentation with respect to that allegation. He stated that the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Scarborough Hospital project was not sent to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office as he would have expected to have been done.”
Unable to proceed
Browne-Antoine’s letter added: “I can say that this office has never received the original nor a copy of the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the award of contracts to NHIC and Warner Construction, Sanitation Ltd/Warner Construction Ltd. “In the circumstances it appears rather there has been no police investigation of the allegation of larceny against NHIC,” Browne-Antoine’s letter stated.
As a result, Nipdec’s attorneys sought clarification why the police had been unable to proceed with the investigation, having been instructed by the DPP. Singh, noting Jeremie’s recent vow to fight corruption, added: “I therefore call upon Mr Jeremie to walk the talk.” Singh added, “I call on him to exercise the constitutionally legitimate functions of the office of the AG by enquiring into:
• Why there appears to be deliberate omission on the part of the DPP, the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the police authorities in bringing the investigation of this matter to a finality?
• Why is it that the recommendations of the commission of enquiry are not being pursued by the executive?
Singh said it was scandalous the commission made its recommendations in 2005, “yet up to 2009, this matter has not been closed. “The public requires accountability on the part of the AG, the DPP and Police Commissioner. If they all cannot bring such a issue to closure it gives rise to questions about political interference.” Singh said the situation sets a precedent for the findings of other commissions.
No comment
Contacted for response, the AG was said to be in London. “Revamping of anti-corruption thrust is ahead,” sources hinted. Annisette-George, meanwhile, was unavailable for comment. Browne-Antoine was not in her officer her secretary said. Calls to the cellphones of police officials went unanswered.
However, the probers concluded: “The commission does not feel that this explanation adequately explains the discrepancy.”
In respect of the Scarborough Regional Library, eight contractors eventually tendered to Udecott and Warner Construction and Sanitation Ltd was selected after an evaluation by Welch, Morris & Associates to do the job for $25.5 million.
However, the performance bond of $2.5 million posted by Warner referred to the contract being a job entailing “execution and completion of certain infrastructural works and housing units.”
According to the report: “The error was only realised by Mr Agard during the hearing of this commission of enquiry. The commission is astounded that such an error could go undetected for such a long time or at all ...”
With regard to the Blenheim housing project in Tobago, the commissioners learnt that Warner Construction was specifically invited to join nine other bidders after the Tobago House of Assembly raised an objection that no Tobago-based firm was being given consideration.
Eventually Warner Construction submitted the lowest bid of the nine firms that tendered, to do the project for $10.8 million.
However, the firm made the mistake of submitting a performance bond, instead of a tender bond, as was required by the evaluator, Trintoplan Consultants.
Despite advice from Udecott director John Mair that another bidder should get the contract ahead of Warner, because the board could be sued for making a “defective” award, Udecott went ahead and gave Warner the contract for work to start on March 10, 2003.
According to the commission’s report: “The commission could not even, with the best attempt by the CEO/corporate secretary, exculpate the glaring blunders and breaches, both of procedure and assessment of the Warner tender.
“The commission is of the view that the ultimate selection displays extreme bias and unfairness to the other bidders. The deliberate consideration of the commission is that Warner’s bid should have been rejected ab initio.”
Subject: Re: THE LANDATE PROJECT! Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:36 pm
BY COREY CONNELLY
The business arrangement between Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s private commercial development in Tobago and Warner Construction Ltd is above board, Allan Warner, the company’s managing director, insists.
“There is a contract between Dr Rowley and us (Warner Construction),” Warner confirmed yesterday in a telephone interview from his Tobago office. [GUARDIAN Tuesday 19th October, 2004]
Tue Oct 17, 2023 11:16 am by 
Subject: THE LANDATE PROJECT! 
