Prime Minister Stuart To Go Where No Prime Minister Has Gone – Prevention Of Corruption Bill Coming

Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart

The news that the Prevention of Corruption Bill is back on the Order Paper of Parliament or soon will be is good news. The fact that it is has taken so long to come is to be regretted. What BU has gleaned from the statement issued by Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart is his commitment to deliver anti-corruption/transparency legislation. To those who will predictably howl at the position BU has taken, it is an opinion which the BU household is entitled.

Not many Barbadians will disagree that Prime Minister Stuart possesses a few endearing qualities, those that engender trust, honesty and integrity easily come to mind. If he says he will deliver the Bill under his watch before the next general election, how can he not deliver?

It is interesting to note Opposition Leader Owen Arthur’s  response to the issue – Bring it on! Arthur has been labelled a Master Tactician on BU and one must admire his attempt to wrestle the anti-corruption agenda from the Democratic Labour Party (DLP). While delivering a speech on the weekend Arthur referred to the time when he and Mia Mottley ‘declared’ their assets. He ridiculed the fact that ‘not a boy’ from the government side mirrored their action. BU opined at the time Arthur and Mottley’s action was a gimmick to win goodwill from the electorate. How can any member of parliament  declare assets when there is no framework implemented to assess the accuracy of the submissions?

The government to its credit is getting back on track by proclaiming it will deliver transparency legislation before it’s term expires. Given the Opposition’s fleeting mention of transparency legislation in the last four years, it is highly likely were Arthur to return to government transparency legislation would not see the light of day.

The Prime Minister’s announcement has also served to remind the traditional media about the issue. Social Media never stopped championing the need to enact transparency legislation. In the weeks ahead BU will join other Barbadians to witness Prime Minister Stuart go where Prime Ministers before him failed to travel.

When Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart delivers transparency legislation his legacy will be assured win lose or draw.

Tags: , , , , , ,

182 Comments on “Prime Minister Stuart To Go Where No Prime Minister Has Gone – Prevention Of Corruption Bill Coming”

  1. Random Thoughts March 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM #

    David can you tell me if the pension plan of CBC employees was moved from another insurance company to CLICO while Leroy Parris was head of CLICO AND Chairman of the Board of the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)? And the late much lamented David Thompson was our beloved Prime MInister. And did Leroy Parris receive a commission for this? and if so how much was the commission? And is the pension plan of CBC employees safe? Unsafe? And if unsafe how come we haven’t heard a peep from CBC about this?

    Can you tell me if the staff of CBC was afraid of David Thompson? Of Leroy Parris? And lastly how come the baillifs can find Parris when he was at the NAPSAC games at the stadium on Thursday. Surely since he wife has to go to work and he has to fill up his car and ferry his children back and forth to school, surely it is possible to serve him with the warrant in the school yard any mornig or evening next week?

    Like

  2. Hants March 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM #

    @Amused wrote “How did Mr Arthur get the $6 million out of Barbados to his ex-wife in New York,”

    Perhaps the money did not leave Barbados.

    Amused “Would I want my son to emulate and be like Mr Stuart…….or Mr Arthur?”

    Amused wouldn’t you want your so to emulate a man who could hold he likker and handle young ting?
    You like you ent nuh real real Bajan. lol

    Like

  3. millertheanunnaki March 3, 2012 at 9:32 PM #

    @ Random Thoughts | March 3, 2012 at 9:02 PM |

    If the CBC pension plan has been rearranged to suit the then Chairman’s wishes this is another nail in the DLP’s coffin with the ghost of David Thompson hovering above, or more suitably below.

    LP the “Greenverbs” pink panther is still untouchable and receives strategic and tactical advice as to how to manoeuvre and be one step head of the law and feeble and orchestrated enforcing agencies.

    The same way T the cook books T” is still on the job despite all the findings, accusations and allegations of suspect financial mismanagement and accounting gymnastics. He is still an active member of one or two statutory boards of government agencies.

    These guys are just having a laugh and free ride on the backs of the policy holders and members of the concerned public.

    What a life in Bim! But as Kid Site would say: “Only bout here”.

    Like

  4. Observing (please don't call me observer) March 3, 2012 at 9:46 PM #

    @miller
    A little rough there tonight aren’t we? Justified and bang on in essence, but rough none the less..lol

    @david
    “One may reasonable assume therefore he is on a suicide mission a la Sandiford/Manning or he means business.”

    He may indeed mean, want, desire and intend business…but as many have come to learn while in power, it’s a democracy and even the best, most suited and needed of actions fall to wayside because of the whims of those who don’t want them enacted. Guts, balls and a big figurative gun sometimes are the only things that can do the trick.

    Like

  5. Prodigal Son March 3, 2012 at 9:51 PM #

    @ millertheanunnaki | March 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM ….Thank you for this post. Excellent!

    @David,

    ” Suspect that all are waiting with baited brief for Thompson’s will to be probated. Why has it taken so long? Is there a complication with the estate?”……………………………………………..

    None of my business and I really do not care. I only mention the dead king’s will if it was probated and was being hidden in response to amused’s allegation that Mr Arthur’s divorce file was missing. He certainly could ask the CJ whom they just put in place to find the file for the Dems as they seem to want to bring it into the publc domain. Frankly, it is nobody’s business but the Arthurs. But we Bajans are nosy people.

    Like

  6. David March 3, 2012 at 9:59 PM #

    @Prodigal Son

    Come now are you saying the BLP are not drooling at the prospect that Thompson’s Estate would make for political fodder if it were to be worth say 50 million or so?

    Like

  7. Observing (please don't call me observer) March 3, 2012 at 10:40 PM #

    @david
    methinks drooling would be an understatement.

    Like

  8. Prodigal Son March 3, 2012 at 10:45 PM #

    David,

    Maybe BLPites, but not me, of no interest to me. Whatever he was worth, I am glad for him and his family.

    Like

  9. Prodigal Son March 3, 2012 at 10:49 PM #

    Many of the insurance policies of the statutory boards were moved from ICBL to CLICO very soon after the DLP took up the reins of government. They gave some to their friends too. Remember the story that was leaked by the Minister of Housing or his cronies when the minister fired Marilyn Rice-Bowen.

    Like

  10. millertheanunnaki March 3, 2012 at 10:50 PM #

    @Observing (please don’t call me observer) | March 3, 2012 at 9:46 PM |
    “miller A little rough there tonight aren’t we? Justified and bang on in essence, but rough none the less..lol”

    I acknowledge the muscularity and robustness (to use David’s (BU) phraseology) of the language.

    But a person has to stick up for a principle sometimes. Blatant hypocrisy, double standards and sometimes lies must be challenged vigorously and the only way to do it on this blog is to vehemently express in no uncertain terms that it is just not “Cricket” to be the bowler and umpire too.
    Sometimes on must call a spade a spade even if you lose so-called friends as a result.
    You see, even I can handle myself with a diplomatic and conciliatory response (LOL!!)

    Like

  11. Prodigal Son March 3, 2012 at 10:57 PM #

    David,
    Have you found out yet who was in charge of Thompson & Associates during the period May 22, 2008 and May 11, 2010?

    Like

  12. David March 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM #

    @Prodigal Son

    Despite the published note by the young lawyers who now bear the name one must conclude that Thompson interest would have been managing the transition until the official sign-off..

    Like

  13. Prodigal Son March 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM #

    I like your style, miller. Thanks for standing up for me too. When attacked, I tend to stay off the blog for a few days. You are right, you need to fight back.

    Hey old onions, where are you tonight? Gone partying with the Gold Cup people?? LOL.

    Like

  14. millertheanunnaki March 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM #

    @ Prodigal Son | March 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM |

    No sweat, my son! But no fatted calf to be killed for your homecoming (LOL!!).

    You see, the likes of Amused and Observer that hide behind the veil of hypocritical “unbiased and apolitical’ contributions must be exposed in the light of day. They are just wind-up dolls with a fixed moral pro-DLP compass no matter what the weather is and whose time of playing in the Punch & Judy show will soon expire and the deflated balloon would soon be lost at sea like a broken weather cock come anytime soon.

    Like

  15. balance March 5, 2012 at 5:10 AM #

    Mr david i have already told yo that people personal private business does not concern me. if the purported $6million was paid to Mrs Arthur from the Treasury then it would become my business as a loyal taxpayer of 47 years.

    Like

  16. balance March 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM #

    Mr Random thoughts – if i am gathering from your response that everything that comes out of the mouth of a politician on a political platform is gospel truth then you are extremely gullible and should change your blog name to idle thoughts. i can understand the party faithfuls burying their heads in sand and defending indefensible party positions out of blind love for the institution; but you say that you a non- affiliated. Well God help Barbados if the majority thought like you. SIR, we need to be able to discern and ignore empty political manipulative self serving mouthings for what they are worth. A few months ago, Mr Arthur was throwing Miss Mottley to the wolves in the harshest possible way. Last night at Haggat Hall he is bringing her back into the spotlight to reply to the budget. In 2006, Mr stuart lambasted Mr Thompson at the DLP annual conference and stated that “he is not fit and able to lead the DLP anywhere”. Two years later, he was Mr Thompson’s deputy even though he was reported in an interview as saying that he never ventured into the office of the Prime Minister until he assumed office.Before returning to parliament, Mr Stuart labelled the Social Partnership a “Philosophical Absurdity”, a few weeks ago he was praising it as the best thing that happened to Barbados. A few years ago, Mr Mascoll was elected to lead the floundering DLP in a bruising battle against Veteran Mr Taitt; a few years later he was unceremoniously dumped even though the fortunes of the party had greatly improved under him.The problem is that we do not hold the political leaders to account for their ambiguous statements and actions. I am a bit disappointed at your response SIr, because facts are facts. History is informative and your children ought to be taugt the truth not what we imagine or wish for.

    Like

  17. millertheanunnaki March 5, 2012 at 7:47 AM #

    @ balance | March 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM |

    Very well done! Now this is what you call ‘fair and balanced’ political analysis.
    A real student of Politics and not a political “yardfowl”, to use Bajan parlance. You should repeat this informative piece under the more current thread-“Barbados Labour Party Goes To Haggatt Hall To Press The CLICO Matter”.

    If only the likes of Carson C C could “seethru” the hypocritical veil worn by his blinkered political brother “Amused”, he might just be looking in a mirror to identify his identical twin. The likes of “balance” and the “miller” can see right through the transparent façade of dark hypocrisy carried by the “Amusing” political rigger for the DLP sinking ship hit hard not only by the turbulent high winds of the economic hurricane called “Recession” but also in the targeted path of a $300 million “ton” torpedo nicknamed “CLICO’ with some members of the BLP strapped on board like kamikaze political rats.

    Like

  18. An Observer.. March 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM #

    @ Miller..
    You are a most amazing man ; you buse me in hell for saying that I do not engage in discussing persons and personalities ; you praise “Balance ” for saying people’s private business does not concern him . Well !! Well !! Man be fair ! were we not saying the same thing ? I will not buse you though ; I try as hard as possible to avoid invective and name-calling . Peace my brother.

    Like

  19. millertheanunnaki March 5, 2012 at 9:39 AM #

    @ An Observer.. | March 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM |

    OK, then, let us deal with a real serious issue here. Put on your thinking cap and delve into your legal training, experience and presumed knowledge.
    In spite of the Pontius Pilate like and even a cock crowing Peter disavowal by some of the former members of the Board of Directors of CLICO is it still possible for these directors to be sued jointly and severally for negligence or lack of due care? From what was expressed in the newspaper, it might be possible to draw a conclusion that any fiduciary responsibilities entrusted to the board of directors were continuously neglected with no publicly stated or expressed concerns raised with the executive management of the business. A very sad reflection on their overall supervision achievement along with the Auditors apparent indifference.
    What are the chances, legally speaking, of an aggrieved policyholder bringing a case of contributory negligence-or in the case of BIPA a class action suit- against these directors and by inference the independent auditors who would have expressed a “fair” opinion on the reliability of the financial statements prepared by the executive management.

    It would be interesting to find out if any of the speakers on the BLP platform mounted last evening made any reference to the chances of widening the net of culpability and not totally affixing blame on the political cohorts of the DLP alone.

    Maybe the following extract from the Companies Act could inform your contribution to help educate and enlighten fellow bloggers

    CAP. 308 Companies L.R.O. 1997 62

    Duty of Directors and Officers

    Duty of care.

    Sec. 95. (1) Every director and officer of a company in exercising his
    powers and discharging his duties must
    (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests
    of the company; and
    (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent
    person would exercise in comparable circumstances.
    (2) In determining what are the best interests of a company, a
    director must have regard to the interests of the company’s employees
    in general as well as to the interests of its shareholder.
    (3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) on the directors of a
    company is owned by them to the company alone; and the duty is
    enforceable in the same way as any other fiduciary duty owned to a
    company by its directors.
    (4) Every director and officer of a company must comply with this
    Act and the regulations, and with the articles and by-laws of the
    company, and any unanimous shareholder agreement relating to the
    company.
    (5) Subject to subsection (2) of section 133, no provision in a
    contract, the articles of a company, its by-laws or any resolution,
    relieves a director or officer of the company from the duty to act in
    accordance with this Act or the regulations, or relieves him from
    liability for a breach of this Act or the regulation.

    Dissenting to resolutions.

    Sec. 96. (1) A director who is present at a meeting of the directors or
    of a committee of directors consents to any resolution passed or action
    taken at that meeting, unless
    (a) he requests that his dissent be or his dissent is entered in the
    minutes of the meeting,
    (b) he sends his written dissent to the secretary of the meeting
    before the meeting is adjourned, or
    (c) he sends his dissent by registered post or delivers it to the
    registered office of the company immediately after the meeting
    is adjourned.
    (2) A director who votes for, or consents to, a resolution may not
    dissent under subsection (1).
    (3) A director who was not present at a meeting at which a
    resolution was passed or action taken is presumed to have consented
    thereto unless, within 7 days after he becomes aware of the resolution,
    he
    (a) causes his dissent to be placed with the minutes of the meeting,
    or
    (b) sends his dissent by registered post or delivers it to the registered
    office of the company.
    (4) A director is not liable under section 83, 84 or 95 if he relies in
    good faith upon
    (a) financial statements of the company represented to him by an
    officer of the company, or
    (b) a report of an attorney-at-law, accountant, engineer, appraiser
    or other person whose profession lends credibility to a statement
    made by him.

    Like

  20. An Observer.. March 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM #

    @ Miller
    Man you are now getting down to serious OBJECTIVE discourse from which we may both benefit and which it is hoped will make fellow bloggers better informed. you have done a public service by reproducing sec 95 of the Companies Act of Barbados . That section immediately follows the heading ” Duty of Directors and Officers ” . This section clearly imposes a STATUTORY DUTY OF CARE ON ALL DIRECTORS. In my view therefore , if you have such a duty of care imposed upon you then , concomitantly , you may be censured for a BREACH OF THAT DUTY. It is therefore to be inferred that I hold the view that Directors in breach of that duty imposed by the Statute may be brought before a court of law. I believe that the disavowal by those Directors of any knowledge is a piece of corporate mumbo jumbo and really unworthy of repetition by serious commentators. They should therefore be taking steps to instruct counsel on their behalf, notwithstanding that one of them is himself a QC.
    I did not myself attend the meeting last night so cannot confirm if any of the issues raised by you were discussed from the platform . However whether they were discussed or not , those issues have to be confronted square on ; they cannot be avoided indefinately because one side wants to cast all blame on the other side . So we shall both keep an ear tuned into the debate as it develops . In the meantime, as usual , Peace my brother.

    Like

  21. An Observer.. March 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM #

    @ Miller
    Of course you reproduced s 96 as well to show how a Director may dissent to a resolution taken at a meeting of the Board . Further guidance may be taken from s 97 on the matter of a Company providing indemnity to Board members.

    Like

  22. millertheanunnaki March 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM #

    @ An Observer.. | March 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM |

    One is glad- or even “gay” in its original meaning- that a keen observer is able to appreciate the multi-faceted tentacles of the law that can be extended if only to garner a modicum of restitution that can be brought to the aggrieved policyholders- primarily to those holding priority life insurance contracts, and secondarily, vested pension interests.
    Then for anyone to set aside the potential invocation and application of provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering & Income Tax legislations would be relying to much on the miniscule fines that can only be imposed under the superficial opprobrium and pussycat “slap on the wrist” penalties available under the legislation regulating financial instruments marketed by the Insurance industry.

    If the Authorities were to use these pieces of much under utilized legislation to fight “white collar” crime then many financially fertile under ground passages might be open up so much with light that the personal property acquired during the period under investigation could be seized as proceeds of crime or to make good any outstanding tax liabilities heretofore evaded.

    You should also whisper in the ear of your opposite number (“Amused”) that he should be a bit more careful and even circumspect when he gathers his wheat for indiscriminate delivery to the mill(er) with its very sharp incisors and heavy grinders.
    As-Salāmu Alaykum! (As-salaam alaikum!)

    Like

  23. Ras Jahaziel March 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM #

    President Nkrumah, “Africa needs a new type of citizen a dedicated, modest, honest, informed man. A man who submerges self in service to the nation and mankind. A man who abhors greed and detests vanity. A new type of man whose humility is his strength and whose integrity is his greatness.”

    IT WILL TAKE A NEW EDUCATION SYSTEM
    that CONNECTS THE PAST WITH THE PRESENT, and thereby acquaints students with THEIR MORAL AND HISTORICAL IMPERATIVE. (through the slave-master’s orders this connection is always OBSCURED.

    But wide familiarity with this NOBLE IMPERATIVE
    can only be achieved when the lens of the education process is focused through the eye of THE SLAVE.

    Up to the present time, the lens has been focused through THEY EYE OF THE SLAVE-MASTER……..FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING BETTER TRAINED SLAVES OR REPRODUCING WHITE SLAVE MASTERS IN BLACK SKINS.

    That which issues from this scenario is…..LITTLE AMBITIOUS BLACK WANNA-BE SLAVE MASTERS.

    Like

  24. Bush Bar Friend May 25, 2016 at 9:45 AM #

    Clearwater Bay Receivable
    2.61 The Government of Barbados guaranteed a loan for $120,000,000 in
    respect of the Four Seasons Development project during the financial year
    2011-2012. This guaranteed debt was called during the financial year
    2013-2014 by the bankers. As Government had guaranteed the debt, it
    had to pay an amount of $124,329,766 which entailed principal plus
    interest to the lenders. These funds were paid through a Government
    owned company, Clearwater Bay. This amount was subsequently
    recorded in the accounts of the Treasury as an account receivable. There
    was no movement on this receivable account for the financial year ended
    March 31, 2015. There is no information available on whether there might
    be a need to write down this receivable, or when or how this amount will
    be repaid. It is also not clear what assets this advance is linked to.

    Like

  25. BDLP May 25, 2016 at 9:46 AM #

    Small Hotel Investment Funds
    2.60 In April 2007 an agreement was signed between Government and the
    Small Business Investment Fund for a loan of $28,000,000, with annual
    interest at a rate of 2.5%, to be used for the Small Hotel Group
    Refurbishing Scheme. The terms of the agreement required that the
    repayment of the loan commence December 31, 2010. At March 31, 2015
    no payment had been made by the Small Business Investment Fund in
    settlement of the debt. The amount outstanding on the loan at that date
    totalled $35,528,362, inclusive of interest receivable.

    Like

  26. BDLP May 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM #

    A loan in the amount of $2,000,000 was made to Southern Golf by
    Government on September 25, 2009. No loan agreement was entered
    into by the parties, and no repayments or interest has been received from
    the Southern Golf to date, which increases the risk that these funds might
    not be recovered

    Like

  27. BDLP May 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM #

    During the financial year 2009-2010 amounts totalling $950,000 were
    loaned to Durette & Co. (Caribbean) Ltd from the Public Enterprise
    Investment Fund (PEIF). This loan has not been brought to account to
    date by the Treasury, and this has resulted in the receivables being
    understated by $950,000. It should also be noted that this loan is not
    being serviced, and it is my understanding that the company is no longer
    in business. Consideration may have to be given to writing off this loan. I
    have made this recommendation for a number of years but no action has
    been taken to date.

    Like

  28. BDLP May 25, 2016 at 9:49 AM #

    @Richard Sealy, As at March 31, 2015 a formal contract did not exist between the
    Government of Barbados and the Barbados Tourism Investment
    Incorporation (BTII) for loans made to that institution. No repayments were
    received from the BTII during the year under review. Amounts outstanding
    were reported in the Accountant General’s Financial Statements (Note 11)
    as $141,500,000, with accrued interest as $19,351,206. No further
    information was produced to verify the status of the BTII receivables,
    which had been reduced by $97,885,949 in July 2011. The Audit Office
    cannot verify the accuracy of this amount, since no adequate information
    was made available pertaining to these transactions. In a previous
    meeting with the management of the Barbados Tourism Investment Inc.
    the auditors were informed that this amount pertained to work carried out
    on the behalf of the Government. This matter needs to be clarified and
    resolved by the relevant parties.

    Like

  29. Turf Club Dont Pay May 25, 2016 at 9:53 AM #

    Monthly reports from the Turf Club should be submitted to the Accountant
    General’s Department to substantiate the payment of taxes arising from its
    betting activities. It was however observed that no monthly reports have
    been submitted, nor have payments been received from the Turf Club in
    relation to taxes due from betting since May 2010. A reminder letter was
    forwarded to the Turf Club on July 11, 2012 requesting that this
    information be submitted. However, no further follow up action has been
    taken.
    2.105 The absence of information on funds due from betting results in the
    underreporting of revenue, and accounts receivable, in the financial
    statements. This matter needs to be pursued vigorously by the Treasury

    Like

  30. Hants May 25, 2016 at 10:18 AM #

    Fuh true…. fuh real ?

    “Let the members of the Democratic Labour Party be held to account for what they came to office with, what they acquired in public life and what they will leave Parliament [with] at the end.”

    Like

  31. David May 27, 2016 at 6:34 PM #

    In effect what we can conclude is same old same old under the DLP administration who promised change.

    Epic F!

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: