1 week ago
5
Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
The Community-based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme Company (CEPEP) has signalled its intention to possibly sue nine former board members over their decision to ratify the three-year extension of over 300 contractors days before the April 28 General Election.
The company’s lawyers, led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, made the threat in a pre-action protocol letter sent to the board members yesterday.
The board members are Brian Rock, Yinka Jagbir-Garcia, Camille Hosein, Maurissa Smith, Thomas Sanoir, Geeta Rampersad, Wendell Williams, Kirt Bernard and Michael Seales.
In the correspondence, obtained by Guardian Media, attorney Aasha Ramlal noted that the proposed legal action against them would be dependent on their position on the basis for the renewals.
She noted that while ongoing CEPEP CEO Keith Eddy and corporate secretary Nicole Gopaulsingh repeatedly claimed the board took the decision on the basis that the then-Cabinet approved the renewals, former CEPEP chairman Joel Edwards has claimed the renewals were discussed by him and Eddy only and then taken to board for approval based on a Cabinet minute from 2017, which purportedly gave the company the autonomy to renew contracts without such approval.
Noting that a board minute reflecting the renewal decision stated it was approved by the Cabinet and was not corrected, Ramlal said: “We have been instructed to seek clarification from you on whether this is in fact so in light of the fact that the email with your vote did not give any other reason for same.”
“The information is highly relevant to our advice in this matter and the determination of whether CEPEP has a viable claim against you for inter alia breach of fiduciary duty,” she added.
Ramlal suggested that the timing of the renewal of the contracts, which were due to end in 2026, should have been a red flag for the board members.
“It would have no doubt been obvious to you that this was a highly suspicious and unusual course for the board to adopt mere days before the general election,” she said.
Ramlal noted that the company has already threatened to initiate litigation against Edwards for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and misfeasance in public office, and will be seeking an order for Edwards to indemnify it for any liability it may face for the extended contracts.
“Our client reserves the right to institute similar proceedings against you in light of your response to this letter,” she said.
Ramlal gave the former board members 14 days in which to provide a written response.
The issue of Cabinet approval arose when Laventille-based general contracting company Eastman Enterprise filed a lawsuit after the contracts were terminated by the United National Congress (UNC)-led Government in late June.
Eastman contended that CEPEP acted unlawfully, as it was required to immediately pay for one month’s service, as it sought to terminate based on clause 15 of the contract, without giving notice.
The clause allows CEPEP to terminate by giving 30 day’s notice or making a payment in lieu of notice, if the company fails to meet its contractual obligations or performance assessments conducted by CEPEP officials.
Eastman alleged that while it was promised that the payment would be processed and dispensed when CEPEP notified the company of the termination, the payment should have been made together with the termination letter.
It is also contended that the clause is unfair and in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1985, as it gave CEPEP too wide of a discretion to terminate. It sought an injunction to stay the termination and to block the State company from appointing replacement contractors while its substantive case is being determined.
Responding to the lawsuit, CEPEP raised the issue of the lack of Cabinet approval for the extensions. It also filed an application for the case to be struck out on the basis that the company had alternative dispute mechanisms available to it.
CEPEP put forward an affidavit from Eddy, who claimed Edwards gave assurances to him and the company’s board that Cabinet had approved the renewals before they approved such. Edwards provided an affidavit in response, on Eastman’s behalf, in which he claimed he never gave such assurances and sought to correct a board note over the renewals that indicated it was being done with the blessing of the then-Cabinet.
Eddy then filed another affidavit challenging Edwards’ claims.
Eddy provided a transcript of WhatsApp messages between him and Eddy to buttress his original claim.
He further contended that before Edwards gave the alleged assurance, he (Eddy) was personally pressured by former rural development and local government minister Faris Al-Rawi into facilitating the renewals of the contracts.
CEPEP has also threatened Edwards with legal action over his role in facilitating the renewals.
Edwards has denied any wrongdoing, including colluding with Al-Rawi to procure the extensions.
Last Thursday, High Court Judge Margaret Mohammed granted a stay of the lawsuit and referred the issue over the renewals to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard.
Gaspard has received the documents from the Supreme Court Registrar and has stated, “I will peruse the subject documents. If there is a need for an investigation, that would have to be done by the police.”
Guardian Media understands that Eastman’s lawyers are preparing an appeal of Justice Mohammed’s decision.
English (US) ·