MP Hosein Responds to Deyalsingh Statement on Recusal
I have taken note of the contents of the statement by Minister Deyalsingh today and respond as follows:
1) A Freedom of Information Application (FOIA) dated 11th January 2021 was sent to the Cabinet seeking the following information:
“A List of the matters for which each Minister recused himself/herself from the proceedings of Cabinet Meetings relevant to the respective Cabinet Meetings during the period 08th September 2015 to date”.
[A copy of the FOIA dated 11th January 2021 is enclosed.]
2) The Cabinet Secretariat by letter dated 10th February 2021, replied to the FOIA, and requested an extension to 10th March 2021 to respond to the FOIA. On 10th March 2021, the Cabinet Secretariat requested a further extension to 31st March 2021 to respond. On 29th March 2021, the Cabinet Secretariat requested an extension to 07th April 2021 to respond to the FOIA.
3) On 07th April 2021, the Cabinet Secretariat responded and provided the information that was requested pursuant to the FOIA enclosing a list of recusals for each cabinet minister for the period 08th September 2015 to the date [11th January 2021]
[I have enclosed for your attention a copy of the said FOIA response dated 07th April 2021 and in particular Page 27.]
4) On perusal of the FOIA response by the Cabinet Secretariat it stated at page 27, that in 2020, The Hon. Terrence Deyalsingh recused himself from Cabinet in relation to:
“Issuance of Orders under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Chap. 58:01, in respect of Five (5) Parcels of Land to be acquired for the Purpose of Facilitating the Construction of Phase 1 of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway Extension to Manzanilla Project”.
5) In addition to this recusal, the said FOIA response by the Cabinet Secretariat indicated that Minister Deyalsingh would have recused himself on twelve other occasions ranging from matters to the refurbishment of Whitehall, grant of a lease of agricultural lands in Rio Claro, the San Fernando Waterfront Project, the Redevelopment of Central Block, and the refinancing of a loan for Petrotrin.
6) In this regard, I note with utter shock that Minister Deyalsingh cast doubt on the records of Cabinet meetings. Minister Deyalsingh must now explain the shocking contradiction with respect to his statement and the records of the Cabinet. The Cabinet furnished this response based on a legal request and acted under a legal duty to provide an accurate response under the provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Chap. 22:02.
7) I note Minister Deyalsingh’s statement, that while he upholds “the principles of transparency and integrity in public office”, he should provide the reasons for any recusals from decisions of the Cabinet.
8) I have raised these matters in the public domain to hold the government to account to ensure good governance, integrity, and transparency in public life.