Quantcast
Channel: The Trinidad Guardian Newspaper - News
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 14408

TTFA must pay $1m to ex-secretary

$
0
0

Former government minister Jack Warner may have escaped having to fork out $1 million in damages to his former secretary, but he may yet have a case to answer before the Integrity Commission (IC) over conduct.

In delivering judgment in a lawsuit brought by Chaguanas businessman Imamuddin Baksh yesterday, Justice Frank Seepersad expressed alarm over the gratuitous work arrangement that Warner, as a government minister, had with Baksh, saying it may warrant an investigation by the IC. 

 Warner was named as one of three defendants in the lawsuit brought by Baksh, managing director of Graphix Advantage Ltd, over money owed to him for advertising services for the Fifa Under-17 Women’s World Cup 2010.

 The judge, however, dismissed the action against Warner and ordered the T&T Football Association (TTFA) and LOC South Africa 2010 Ltd to pay Baksh $1,262,431.19 in damages.

Warner, who was seated in the San Fernando High Court, was scolded by the judge for his actions.

Seepersad said: “Public officers must always jealously guard the integrity of their office and the acceptance of gratuitous labour by holders of high office is unacceptable.

“Such arrangements undermine the integrity and the independence of the office and create the unfortunate impression that less than transparent factors operate and/or influence the officer holder when it comes to the provider of gratuitous service.

“A perception is thereby created that such arrangements are reflective of a situation where the provider of the gratuitous service expects and/or receives renumeration in other unconventional ways.”

He added: “It is unfathomable that a member of the executive, who has the support systems provided by the State and funded by taxpayers, would have to rely on the gratuitous secretarial services of anyone. 

“The circumstance that operated in this case also creates the impression that the second named defendant (Warner), by virtue of his position, may have received an unaccounted benefit by the receipt of the free secretarial services that were provided and this possible benefit may be a circumstance that may warrant an investigation by the Integrity Commission. 

“Inappropriate behaviour in public office has to be condemned and cannot be tolerated.”

 Baksh claimed Warner, who was then special advisor to the TTFA and chairman of the LOC, asked him to provide advertising goods and services for the event and to bill the LOC and TTFA for his services.  

In dismissing the action against Warner, the judge said based on evidence the court “cannot pierce the veil of incorporation and thereby attach personal liability” to Warner. 

The judge also ordered the LOC and TTFA to pay Baksh’s cost, but made no order as to costs in relation to the dismissal of the claim against Warner.

Baksh was represented by Hendrickson Seunath, SC, while Owen Hind Jr represented Warner and Keith Scotland represented the LOC.

Jack complains to CJ

​Warner yesterday made a formal complaint to Chief Justice Ivor Archie about the statements Justice Seepersad made against him.

Warner, in his letter, stated: “Prior to the delivery of the said judgment, I was completely unaware that the Learned Judge may have formed the impression that I may have breached the Integrity in Public Life Act, Chap. 22:01 ("the IPLA").

“I have never been given any opportunity to be heard before the Learned Judge publicly stated that my actions may warrant an investigation by the Integrity Commission. Indeed, I am still unaware of the exact provision or provisions of the IPLA that the Learned Judge had in mind when he suggested such investigation.”

“Moreover, the issues in the matter were squarely and solely in the realm of private law and I am of the respectful view that the privilege attached to judicial proceedings ought not to be abused in the manner that it has been by the Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad.

“Judges are protected by law in relation to the statements they make in court. This does not mean that judges must use every opportunity to make public and sanctimonious statements about the conduct of persons coming before them.”


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 14408

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>