Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley says no matter what happens with the Commission of Enquiry into the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago (UDeCOTT) and the construction sector, enough evidence has been raised during its proceedings to warrant an investigation by law enforcement.

Rowley, who is a witness in the Enquiry, was speaking to reporters yesterday as he again called on the Government to ’do right by the people of Trinidad and Tobago’ and bring to the Parliament, a Validation Bill to give retroactive effect to the Commission which has no legal standing under the Commission of Enquiry Act because it was not published in the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette.

’I am very strong in my view that with respect to the clauses to the anti-corruption, the Prevention of Corruption, Act, information is now in the public domain that certain person or persons acting in public offices, spending huge sums of public money have acted in contravention of that Act and whatever happens to the Commission of Enquiry, the information we have in front of us as to the conduct of those persons, warrants immediate follow-up by the relevant authorities,’ Rowley said.

Opposition MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar yesterday made a similar call for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate some of the issues raised during the Enquiry.

The Enquiry’s chairman Prof John Uff was asked about the issue of the privilege and protection afforded by the Commission of Enquiry Act under which all of its parties believed they were submitting their oral and written evidence.

’Privilege is a matter that attaches to proceedings in various ways. The question of what privilege would attach to a common law enquiry is a matter that I have not considered in detail. I have little doubt that some degree of privilege would apply but you would probably appreciate that is one of the issues that has been debated within the Enquiry and also had been the subject of an application to court and that, I think, would have to lie with other hands.’

Rowley said he was ’very satisfied’ with Uff’s explanation that the non-gazetting of the Enquiry does not mean that all is lost with regard to its proceedings.

Asked yesterday if, as chairman of the Enquiry, he had a responsibility to ensure it was properly mandated, Uff said,’ I’ve not been able to make enquires as to how things usually run. I understand there is a standard procedure that was obviously not followed in this case. I don’t know precisely what that standard procedure is.’