Attorney Israel Khan has resigned ’in the public interest’ as a member of the Commission of Enquiry into the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd and the construction sector.

His resignation letter, dated August 11, follows a letter of the same date from Attorney General John Jeremie to Commission chairman Prof John Uff, in which he (Jeremie) expressed concern about a previous letter written by Khan to UDeCOTT’s attorneys, Pollanais, Blanc and de la Bastide.

In that letter, Khan, responding to allegations of bias from UDeCOTT, had slammed its boss, Calder Hart.

In his resignation letter to President George Maxwell Richards, Khan said ’on reflection’, he had come to the view that any ’reasonable’ person ( after reading his letter to UDeCOTT) may conclude ’that I now possess an unconscious bias against Mr Calder Hart and, by extension, UDeCOTT’.

Khan also noted the concern expressed by the attorney general over his statements. Jeremie stated in his letter to Uff that his attention had been drawn to certain remarks appearing in the Express of August 8, 2009, attributed to Commissioner Khan. ’Commissioner Khan’s public utterances have caused me concern. I am of the view that your commission must appear to be and must be at all times disinterested and impartial in the discharge of its functions,’ Jeremie wrote.

The attorney general added: ’ I am in the process of taking advice in relation to this matter and should expect to revert to you within the next day or so.’

Khan, in his letter to Richards, stated that in all these circumstances although he stood by the statements made in his letter to UDeCOTT, he was of the view that ’the public interest, which is always of priority concern to me, will be best served by my recusing myself forthwith from sitting as a commissioner on the said enquiry’.

Richards yesterday acknowledged receipt of Khan’s letter ’in which you indicated that you will be recusing yourself from sitting as a commissioner on the Commission of Enquiry’.

He added: ’I wish to express my sincere appreciation to you for the service which you have so far rendered.’ Sources said the commission, which originally had four members, was not in jeopardy with Khan’s departure. There are three independent members left, including one attorney, Uff, so the commission can continue with its work, which begins on September 7 when the fourth (and last) round of hearings starts.

Khan’s ten-page letter to UDeCOTT, dated August 5, in which he made several controversial remarks, was in response to allegations of bias and to a demand by UDeCOTT that he and all other commissioners ’stand down forthwith’, or else it would apply to the High Court for an order that further hearings of the commission be suspended until a judicial review of the conduct of the commission can be obtained.

UDeCOTT had charged that Khan’s statements, made in two separate television interviews, about Lord Mustill and about the historical racism of white lawyers suggested that there was a xenophobic undercurrent in his ’psyche’ and contained an undertone of racism.

Khan hit back, noting that criticism of one white person did not translate into racism against all whites. ’It seems that Mr Calder Hart is of the view that the white man is a sacred cow, and no matter what the reasons or context and whether it is justifiable or not, no criticism must be made of such a man...In these circumstances, I am constrained to point out that Mr Calder Hart appears to be paranoid.... He is obsessed with the issue of race and xenophobia,’ Khan said.

Khan, who also castigated Lord Mustill in the interview, confirmed in his letter to UDeCOTT that he did state that Mustill behaved like an old colonial (in his report of the tribunal into former chief justice Sat Sharma). He defended his comments in his letter to UDeCOTT, stating that he referred to Mustill as a ’massa’...’when massa suggests to you, come here, you must attend, and I drew the example that when a Canadian, a white Canadian tells you ’would you like to move this’, it is not an option, you must move it.’

Khan, who spoke of the ’historical racism of white lawyers’, stated that this had nothing to do with Hart or with UDeCOTT attorney Andrew Goddard. Dismissing UDeCOTT’s claim that there was an association between the two issues, Khan wondered whether it was a case of if you ’touch one white man, you touch all’.

Khan concluded in his letter to UDeCOTT that the Government had full confidence in the commission and urged UDeCOTT to embrace the commission and endear it ’unless there is cocoa in the sun’.