The Prof John Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago (UDeCOTT) and the construction sector has gone for the brightest and the best, in the person of British QC Michael Beloff, as it prepares to do battle with State company, UDeCOTT, in court today.

The commission has bypassed the local attorneys originally provided it by the State (who are led by SC Seunath Jairam), and has opted instead to hire Beloff, who is widely rated as one of the ten top barristers in England.

Beloff, who is a friend of Cherie Blair, wife of former British prime minister Tony Blair, is referred to as the Bar’s Renaissance man. According to The Times, Beloff, 66, is described as ’clever and learned’ and ’is among the highest paid silks in his field’. His clients have included Mohammed Al Fayed, one of England’s richest businessmen.

Sources said Attorney General John Jeremie had to agree to the hiring of Beloff, because any expense undertaken by the commission is for the State, which, in the form of the Attorney General, has to agree to the expenditure.

The judicial review application of UDeCOTT against the commission is to be heard today.

Responding to calls from Opposition Senator Wade Mark and Independent Senator Dana Seetahal to send the evidence from the enquiry, which is already in the public domain, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police, Jeremie also gave an undertaking that ’Government is a responsible Government and I can assure you it is acting responsibly with respect to the evidence that is in the public domain’.

Legal sources suggested yesterday that this could only mean that Government would pass the evidence on to the competent investigatory bodies- the DPP and the CoP.

Jeremie, who does not want the commission to be derailed, said yesterday that the country had spent too much time and too much money to let this commission fall. Piloting the Validation and Immunity Bill in the Senate, he said:

’The commission has devoted a considerable amount of time to the gathering of evidence and other material relevant to its terms of reference; vast resources have been expended from the public purse and the citizens of this country must, as a consequence, expect a report and recommendations from the commission in relation to several matters within its remit.

’It would be inconceivable in these circumstances for the commission to start all over again and to rehear all the evidence previously given before it. To do so would be a waste of money and time. It would also be contrary to good public administration, especially when the law provides a well-established means to rectify the error.’

He added: ’An enquiry was conducted and there is absolutely no reason now to repeat the process. It is as simple as that.’

Jeremie said he met with UDeCOTT’s attorneys on Wednesday while he was in the House of Representatives, to ensure their claim could not proceed in the manner in which it was crafted-as a direct attack on the actions of the State and against certain directives of the President. The claim would therefore be amended.

He also said he told UDeCOTT attorneys that in respect of the application for interim relief, he expressed the view that it would be unfair to proceed with this claim until the Uff commission had a realistic opportunity to be heard. The proceedings of the Commission of Enquiry and UDeCOTT will not seek to stay the proceedings of the commission until such time as Prof Uff has an opportunity to be heard in the matter of the bias claim, Jeremie stated.

Jeremie, in piloting the Validation Bill, said it is not intended to inoculate the commissioners from anything they may have done which has breached well-established principles or public law.

’In other words, to be perfectly clear, it has absolutely nothing to do with the judicial review proceedings which are afoot against the commission,’ he said.

In fact, the Validation Bill would only make sense and have effect if the court finds that the commission is without bias. If the court finds in UDeCOTT’s favour, that is the absolute end of the commission and nothing can save it.

In response to queries, Jeremie said he did not know the cost of the commission.

He said the Validation Bill seeks to validate the proceedings of the commission during the period September 9, 2008 to September 7, 2009, and seeks to validate the record of the proceedings of the commission during that period.

It also validates the evidence and seeks to ensure that the commission, commissioner, a witness and all categories of persons who published any evidence obtained from the commission shall not be subject to legal proceedings or any legal action. Jeremie explained that because it is seeking to deny a person access to the court, it has to be passed by a special majority.