Fair Trading Commission director grilled over delays in pharmaceutical probe

Chairman of the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC), Speaker Jagdeo Singh as he chaired the meeting of the committee on December 1 the Red Houe. PHOTO COURTESY OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENT -

Fair Trading Commission (FTC) executive director Bevan Narinesingh came under intense and sustained cross-examination before the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC).

Speaker and committee chairman Jagdeo Singh repeatedly pressed Narinesingh on what he described as the commission’s “lethargy” and failure to use its extensive statutory powers to investigate alleged anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical sector.

The hearing, held in Parliament on December 2, quickly turned into a pointed confrontation on whether the FTC had mishandled a matter Singh said raised “issues of the highest national importance,” involving possible monopolistic behaviour in the supply and retail distribution of pharmaceuticals.

Throughout the exchange, Singh alternated between irritation and incredulity as he questioned why the FTC, despite receiving letters and documentation dating back to September 2024, had not initiated a formal investigation using its own powers under the Fair Trading Act.

Singh began by outlining the broad powers afforded to the commission under the act, repeatedly asking Narinesingh to affirm the FTC not only has the authority but also the obligation to act, even without a formal complaint.

“Anti-competitive behaviour in a marketplace is among the highest public-interest concerns needing protection. Would you agree? ” Singh asked. Narinesingh said yes. Singh pressed further, directing him to Section 9 of the act, which empowers the FTC to act “on its own initiative.”

“I am sorry if I sound somewhat peeved, but I am,” Singh said, describing the issue as one of the highest national importance. He told Narinesingh, “Instead of assuming your vast and extensive statutory authority, you sought to shift the onus onto the complainant. How is such a position even possibly tenable?”

At issue was the FTC’s response to a September 6, 2024, letter from a private business association raising concerns over possible anti-competitive conduct. The commission replied on September 13 with a list of eight information requests and, according to Singh, then proceeded to take no decisive action for months.

Singh challenged Narinesingh to explain why, instead of invoking Section 8, which allows the commission to compel documents from any business enterprise, the FTC placed responsibility on the private association to obtain sensitive corporate records from entities suspected of wrongdoing.

“How are they possibly going to requisition documents privately held by private entities allegedly engaging in anti-competitive or monopolistic behaviour? You have the power to obtain these documents by relatively simple means.”

Narinesingh defended the FTC’s approach, saying the commission had reached out to various regulators and had been “gathering evidence” before taking formal steps. Singh pressed him to provide proof. Narinesingh said the FTC had met officials at the Ministry of Health in December 2024.

“Where are the minutes of this meeting? Who was present? Where is the report, and why was it not disclosed to this committee?” Singh asked.

Narinesingh said the commission could provide the documentation, but Singh noted nothing had been previously submitted, despite repeated requests. Narinesingh added the FTC had also met the Pharmacy Board and held internal discussions.

Singh asked if records existed for those internal meetings. Narinesingh said the minutes could be shared. Singh questioned if the matter had ever been formally reported to the FTC board.

Tension rose further when Singh referenced a December 13, 2024, public statement issued by the FTC, in which it said concerns raised in the public domain “may require further examination.”

Singh asked what concrete steps the commission had taken after making those assurances to the public and to the association, beyond writing three letters. Narinesingh said the FTC had issued notices inviting concerns from the public on its website and social media.

Singh asked, “Short of writing letters and meeting the Ministry of Health, what other evidence-gathering did you do?”

He also scrutinised a June 17, 2025, letter sent by the FTC, in which Narinesingh said there “may be sufficient grounds” to investigate. Singh challenged him on the meaning of this phrase.

“You are a lawyer. You understand the meaning of ‘prima facie case.’ When you say ‘sufficient grounds’, it means, from your review of the documents, you found a basis to investigate. Don’t you agree?”

After some hesitance, Narinesingh conceded, “Based on the information we received in June, yes.”

Singh then asked what the commission had done with this conclusion. Narinesingh said the FTC had been unable to initiate a formal investigation because the commission’s board had been dissolved since May.

“There has been trepidation about acting without a board. We have never launched an investigation of this nature before,” Narinesingh explained.

Unconvinced, Singh asked, “Where in the act does it say the executive director’s power is circumscribed by a board? ” He asked Narinesingh if he lacked independent authority.

The exchange grew even tense when Narinesingh raised resource constraints. “We understand our statutory remit, but we also have to recognise the resource limitations the commission faces,” he said, before being abruptly cut off by Singh, who replied, “I beg your pardon?”

Clarifying his comments, Narinesingh said the FTC required “alignment” in the regulatory ecosystem and needed “co-operation of the entities as well.” Singh rejected this explanation, saying, “This is a private business association. How are they possibly going to requisition documents? You have the authority.”

Singh then brought the session to a close, but not before issuing sweeping directions. He formally requested the FTC provide the committee with a "compendious" set of every action taken on the matter, as well as minutes of the meeting with the Ministry of Health, board minutes, internal emails, internal task assignments, and any other records of relevance.

Singh then adjourned the meeting to January 26.