The same Director of Public Prosecutions who “conducted his business” the way he did last week - with two UNC members- and also did it again yesterday is the same DPP who has information concerning the A&V Drilling alleged “fake oil” issue.
That was Prime Minister Keith Rowley’s response to the Opposition in Parliament yesterday when he was grilled about why there was no forensic audit into the A&V Drilling/oil issue.
The matter was broken by the Opposition in 2017. Internal audit claims had emerged that A&V Drilling, received millions of dollars from Petrotrin but failed to supply the volume of oil promised. Rowley had acknowledged the company’s owner was his friend.
Yesterday Rowley said the A&V Drilling matter is before the DPP to determine if any wrongdoing occurred and who was accountable. He said A&V and Petrotrin are in arbitration on who owes who and the contractual liabilities are to be determined
“It has nothing to do with me,” Rowley declared under probing by UNC’s Rodney Charles.
“And if he knows of any reasons why I should recuse myself he should say, better still - come outside and say it,” the Prime Minister challenged.
Rowley said information on the matter still exists since Petrotrin was not dissolved. All its past issues remain as “legacy items” of the original company, he added.
UNC MP Roodal Moonilal asked if best-in-class UK forensic auditors would be hired to probe the matter and help law enforcement.
Rowley replied, “I don’t know what they so jumpy about. The police service has already done that and put in the service, the competence and expertise to treat with this and all other matters.”
On Government’s acquisition of land for construction of Valencia to Toco highway, Rowley said the process is now underway to get to the stage of land acquisition. He said taxpayers could be assured there would be no “squandermania” as he claimed was done with the Solomon Hochoy Highway extension to Pt Fortin under the former People’s Partnership administration. He said land acquisition had been one of the sources of the “rape of the Treasury” before.
Challenged by Charles, he said none of his parliamentary colleagues would be treated differently than others whose property might be acquired.
- by Rishi Ragoonath