
CEPEP’s CEO Keith Eddy has threatened legal action against Opposition Senator and former Rural Development and Local Government minister Faris Al-Rawi over what he describes as a “malicious and politically motivated smear campaign.”
Through his attorney, Aasha Ramlal, of Freedom Law Chambers, led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, Eddy sent a pre-action protocol letter to Al-Rawi, notifying him of an intended claim for defamation of character.
The letter accuses the senator of making “false, baseless and damaging” statements against Eddy on four separate occasions, on July 29, August 7, 12 and 13, at press conferences, political meetings, and media interviews.
Eddy alleges that Al-Rawi deliberately vilified him to deflect attention from the fraudulent extension of more than 300 CEPEP contracts just days before the general election. CEPEP maintains that the extensions were made without Cabinet approval.
The letter claims Al-Rawi falsely accused Eddy of material non-disclosure in the ongoing High Court case filed by a Laventille contractor, insinuating that the CEO misled the court by failing to disclose a 2017 Cabinet minute.
It also alleges Al-Rawi wrongly claimed that Eddy had previously renewed CEPEP contracts en masse without Cabinet approval, deliberately omitted critical information from official correspondence, and acted unethically in his role as CEO.
Eddy’s attorney argues that these statements damaged his client’s professional reputation, portraying him as dishonest, unethical and complicit in fraud, while undermining public confidence in his leadership of the state-owned company.
The letter also accuses Al-Rawi of hypocrisy, noting that as a Cabinet member in 2017, he supported a decision that led to the termination of more than 7,000 CEPEP workers.
The letter claimed an item in the contentious Cabinet Note, which Al-Rawi accused Eddy of omitting in response to questions by CEPEP’s current chairman, Dain Maharaj, was not relevant to the issue inquired about.
“In 2017, you were a senior cabinet minister and voted in support of this measure that caused 7,060 CEPEP workers to lose their jobs. “Given that the 2017 Cabinet Minute is dated July 27, 2017, it is obvious that these workers were fired in August 2017, just before the start of the new school term in September 2017. The workers’ families were left without a secure source of income to purchase essential items such as schoolbooks, uniforms, shoes, transportation, and other necessities. “You were strangely silent about the plight and predicament of these 7060 workers and their children in 2017. There is no picture of you in the media protesting the decision, expressing concern for these workers and their families or complaining about Government oppression against those poor and vulnerable CEPEP workers.
“This appears to have been a well-kept PNM secret. It is, of course, the height of political hypocrisy for you to now be attacking our client, the Government and CEPEP, when it was forced to intervene and take action in light of the fraudulent misrepresentation…into ‘ratifying’ a non-existent cabinet decision.
“To turn a blind eye to this would have been a most serious dereliction of duty. Your defamatory attack against our client is therefore disingenuous, unethical and hypocritical,” Ramlal wrote.
“It is simply wrong for you to have expected our client, as CEO, to remain silent. That would have amounted to a serious dereliction of duty on his part and exposed him to liability for breach of his fiduciary duty,” she added.
The pre-action letter calls on Al-Rawi to issue an unqualified public apology, withdraw the allegations, and admit liability for defamation. It also demands compensation for damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, and indemnification of Eddy’s legal costs. If Al-Rawi fails to respond within 14 days, Eddy has instructed his lawyers to file proceedings in the High Court.
The latest development comes as CEPEP pursues legal claims against its former board members, including former chairman Joel Edwards, over the disputed contract extensions, which have already been referred by the High Court to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review.