Articles - News

   Opposition Leader Dr. Kenny Anthony opened a can of worms and stirred up a hornet’s nest when, on August 7th, from the platform during the launching of Lorne Theophilus as the St. Lucia Labour Party’s candidate for the Choiseul/Saltibus constituency, he waved a document at the assembled masses and declared that it was a signed affidavit by an individual who claimed that he had paid Rufus Bousquet, the incumbent UWP representative for the area, money as a “kickback” for the procuring of a building contract from the Taiwanese Embassy.
There was doubt expressed by some sections of the media as to the authenticity of the document that had been raised to the view of the crowd … but upon investigation, The VOICE was able to procure a copy and examine its contents.
Signed by Gilbert Dixon Goolaman of Cantonement, in the quarter of Vieux Fort and “filed” by the law firm of Anthony & Antoine of Mongiraud Street in Castries, the affidavit was notarized by a Justice of the Peace on August 4th, 2011..
Goolaman declares in the document that he was awarded a contract by the Taiwanese Embassy “on or about November 7, 2007” to construct two community bridges and two bus shelters in the constituency of Choiseul and details how he was paid $50,000.00 on November 7 as well as three subsequent cheques for $24,000.00, $23,200.00 and $41,360.00, all dated November 22, 2007.
The grand total paid to him in respect of the contract therefore amounted to $135,000.00.
Mr. Goolaman then went on to describe payments made by him to Hon. Rufus Bousquet by cheque, by deposits made to Mr. Bousquet’s personal bank account and to the account of a company owned by Mr. Bousquet, as well as by monies handed over to the Choiseul/Saltibus representative in the form of cash payments, all as per “requests” made by him.
The total of the payments listed in the affidavit as having been given to Mr. Bousquet amounts to $100,000.00.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The VOICE contacted Hon. Rufus Bousquet and presented him with a copy of the document, seeking to get his response to the charges.
The representative neither directly confirmed nor denied the assertions listed in the affidavit, declaring rather his intention to legally challenge the document whenever he would feel it necessary to do so.
“This is obviously a document produced to create political mischief” Bousquet stated. “Gilbert ‘Bedroom Bully’ Goolaman, a staunch Labour supporter, conveniently produces a document, drawn up in Kenny Anthony’s office, that he thinks could possibly give his party political mileage. In addition, he states that these events took place in the year 2007, yet waits four years, just when the election campaign is getting off the ground, to make these declarations?
“It is also very suspicious that the leader of the SLP should present the document on the platform of the launching of my political opponent … no doubt in a vain attempt to discredit me in the eyes of the electorate.
“I assure you, he will not succeed.”
Mr. Bousquet also dismissed the document as having no legal validity, unless produced in evidence in the course of a court trial, so he is inclined to give it little or no attention, unless some kind of court case should ensue.
Whether or not the sworn affidavit of Mr. Goolaman has either legal or political implications for the Choiseul/Saltibus parliamentary representative, only Time and the unfolding of events during the upcoming “silly season” will tell.

   Dear Editor,


The toughness of Kenny Anthony as a leader was tested several times when he served as Prime Minister from 1997 to 2006; and he always responded with firm resolve and resilience. When his renegade Senators, led by Rick Wayne, stepped out of line, he relieved them of duties. When a Minister misrepresented his qualifications, he let him go; and when another Minister persistently insulted Cabinet colleagues on a point of disagreement, he removed her from his Cabinet.

These are some of the tough decisions that Kenny Anthony took and they pleased some, but also annoyed others. Kenny Anthony knows that not everyone will agree with a decision, but believes that particularly on ethical matters, the line must be drawn — and the right decision taken, whatever the consequences.

Stephenson King, on the other hand, has been described as very indecisive and unable to make even the simplest of decisions unless threatened. He could not fire Ausbert d’Auvergne unless threatened by the bullies in Cabinet. He could not resist re-hiring Rufus Bousquet even after Bousquet’s criminal US conviction came to light, because he was threatened; and he could not take action against corrupt elected Ministers, because of the threat of losing his job as Prime Minister. King constantly hides behind the phrase “Bring me the evidence” — even though most times he has a mountain of evidence before him.

It is turning out that Stephenson King is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and he is slowly but surely being unmasked.

Stephenson King has failed to act against his Ministers on fundamental breaches of ethics and public trust. This is not the legacy that Sir John Compton left to Stephenson King. In fact, Sir John’s daughter Jeanine, who was the last hope of honesty and decency in the current UWP Government, was quickly sidelined for the opportunist Gail “Rigobert”, “Zaide” — or whatever else she wants to call herself now.

If Kenny Anthony was the Prime Minister today and his Attorney General and Minister of Health were in a conflict of interest situation as Doddy and Mondesir are in the American University School of Medicine (AUSOM) scandal, both Doddy and Mondesir would have had to resign or be fired. But with Stephenson King, all we have is more silence, shame and inaction. It’s time for Kenny to come back to clean up King’s mess.

Maryanna Williams

   Earl Huntley’s most recent letter to the Voice, like his earlier publication in 2009, exposes the reason for former prime minister Kenny Anthony’s continuing silence on the matter of Jack Grynberg. He cannot risk tripping over Huntley’s convenient recollections more times than already he has. Huntley, on the other hand, is demonstrably a lot more reckless.
As has been underscored in earlier articles in this series, a number of claims made in Huntley’s now famous story about oil deposits in the sea at Dauphin are contradictory, vague, silly (bordering on voodoo), uncorroborated or just self-serving prevarication.
And now, as if laying down more decoys, he seeks to make light of Jack Grynberg’s references to him as “my trusted associate,” at a time when by his own word Huntley’s role was as the volunteer liaison between the government and Grynberg’s company RSM. He also suggests, reminiscent of Walter Francois’ “ti nom” doctorate, that for no special reason Grynberg often referred to him as his “representative” and “friend”—even in his official correspondence with local government ministries.
Huntley even tries to wiggle out of the fact that for almost five years after he quit the public service he had secretly retained important documents relating to the Grynberg arrangement that rightly belonged in the government’s files. He didn’t take them to New York, he now says, he left them at home, wherever that might be.
Then there is this: “Based on what he had seen in Saint Lucia, Grynberg was also interested in signing an exploration agreement with St Vincent and the Grenadines because he believed that if there was oil in Saint Lucian waters, then oil would also be present in St Vincent, Grenada and Dominica. The minister responsible for energy in St Vincent and the Grenadines at the time was John Horn and in discussions with him he said to me that Saint Lucia and St Vincent had nothing to lose agreeing to grant licenses for exploration and so St Vincent also concluded an agreement with Grynberg’s RSM. Grenada was to do the same afterward.”
The calculated impression given here is that we were first to sign on the dotted line, when in fact we were the last. The Grenada agreement was concluded in 1996, St Vincent’s in 1999 and Saint Lucia’s in 2000—four years after Grenada. Huntley’s convoluted sequence of events notwithstanding, how could Grynberg’s interest in St Vincent have been based on what he had not yet seen in Saint Lucia (has not seen even now!) and not on what was evident to him in Grenada?
It’s almost as if Huntley is determined to say as little as possible about the Grenada disaster, which would be understandable, bearing in mind how it had exposed Grynberg’s true colors. Indeed, had Huntley and Kenny Anthony not been so bent on secrecy, they might’ve discovered that just two weeks after the Grenada government engaged Grynberg he invoked force majeure and abandoned all his contractual obligations.
As I say, in much the same way that Earl Huntley had discovered Grynberg is “a very successful oil entrepreneur with substantial petroleum assets in the USA and other parts of the world” (was he privy to Grynberg’s bank account or did the oilman tell him that?), had the former prime minister conducted even the smallest investigation of the oilman’s dealings with the Grenada government he might have learned enough to keep him from committing Saint Lucia to the contract he signed on 28 March 2000, in direct conflict with the requirements of our Minerals (Vesting) Act. Then again, due diligence was never Kenny Anthony’s strongest point, as well Gavin French and the other Rochamel clique know!
Of course, it is possible both Kenny Anthony and Earl Huntley knew and ignored the fact that the Colorado oilman had soon after signing with Grenada caused the government a heap of trouble (some of it involving sister territories).
In all events, what precisely did Grynberg see with his naked eye in Saint Lucia that alerted him to the oil potential of the named sister islands? The black sand at Dauphin? He had not yet spent the US$60 million that in last weekend’s Voice Huntley claimed Grynberg invested in seismic explorations of Saint Lucia’s waters. Actually, there is absolutely no evidence of such exploration, let alone the cost. I am reliably informed that the related documents to which Huntley referred were borrowed from the Barbados authorities.
Pointless going over the rest of Huntley’s piece in last Saturday’s Voice, save to remind readers of how easy it is to pull a tiger’s teeth in the animal’s absence. The prime minister has already made it quite clear he and his ministers were unable to find any Grynberg-related documents in the government’s files—and John Compton is in no position to validate the outré claims of Earl Huntley. Hardly surprising, he neglected to mention among his Voice revelations how he came by details of secret Cabinet discussions centered on Grynberg but there is the subtle suggestion his unidentified source may have been Ausbert d’Auvergne, about whose character the Labour Party has already said more than enough—certainly enough to cause the gentleman to issue threats of libel and slander at one point.
I, for one, am having a difficult time believing anything Earl Huntley writes or speaks. And not without good cause. Remember the multi-million-dollar Helenites Building transaction? At its center was New York real estate owned by the government of Saint Lucia. For reasons of his own, Earl Huntley (then UN ambassador) had transferred ownership of the property to a fellow Saint Lucian based in New York, for the ostensible purpose of acquiring urgently needed funds from a New York loan shark—without one word to the government of Saint Lucia, then headed by Kenny Anthony.
The curious transaction involved Huntley’s putting together fake documentation that introduced his friend to a loan shark as the actual owner of the property. Having received the money he claimed was needed to effect urgent repairs to the property, Huntley proceeded to put a large portion of it to other use, at least one of them carnival related. He then deposited what was left in the Saint Lucia Mission’s account in New York, without any explanation to its officials. Meanwhile, the Helenites property continued to deterioiate.
In the midst of a public outcry in Saint Lucia generated by leaked information from sources in New York, Kenny Anthony initiated with much fanfare a quite unnecessary inquiry by the former jurist Albert Matthew. The prime minister, Huntley’s boss, might’ve easily saved taxpayers thousands of dollars by simply recalling his UN ambassador and demanding of him some straight answers to direct questions. Instead, the prime minister’s office furnished the ex-judge with the list of names to be interrogated.
By Matthew’s account he found clear evidence of “impropriety” and “misfeasance,” which he defined in turn as “improper conduct” and “the wrongful exercise of authority.” In regular parlance, egregious abuse of office!
Reacting to Huntley’s stubborn insistence that as ambassador he had plenipotentiary powers and acted accordingly, this is what Matthew wrote in his report: “I am of the view that the ambassador was misguided. The ambassador is an agent of his government and as such he must act in accordance with instructions on all matters pertaining to the disposal of the property of government.”
Moreover: “There can be no plausible reason why the ambassador should cause a loan to be made without the authority of the government of Saint Lucia . . . If an ambassador has the powers as claimed, then he would have the authority to sell Saint Lucia without reporting to anyone!”
Or, come to that, the Saint Lucia seabed!
Finally, Matthew placed “full blame for the transfer of title to the New York center and the facilitation of the mortgage squarely on the shoulders of the ambassador.” The former judge held that Huntley “acted without authority in several aspects.”

As for his view that when the project was further developed he would inform the authorities in Saint Lucia, Matthew wrote: “The ambassador got it wrong. It was the other way around.”
The New York property was eventually restored to government ownership but only after lenghty legal issues had been settled at great cost to the Saint Lucian taxpayer. Of course, even now Huntley continues to say he did nothing wrong when he was Saint Lucia’s ambassador, much like someone else I need not identify, despite the contrary finding of a commission of inquiry!
Matthew’s report was still a major topic when the Saint Lucia Labour Party handed Huntley an opportunity to get himself elected to office despite the Helenites episode. Alas, the people of Gros Islet said enough was enough and refused to go along.
So, should Earl Huntley now be believed when he makes unsubstantiated claims about the deceased and about monies wired by Grynberg to his personal account? It seems to me that if in fact the money was to pay bills related to oil exploration in Saint Lucia it should’ve been wired to an appropriate government agency. But then there was always the matter of secrecy to be maintained.
As Huntley put it in his 26 February ’04 letter to Grynberg: To save time “I would suggest that in order to effect payment and maintain the confidentiality of the operation it would be best if you wired the amount to me and I would pay the boat owners.” Presumably the money Grynberg wired to Huntley in May ‘04 was for something else, doubtless also confidential!
Which reminds me: Huntley pooh-poohs Grynberg’s references to him as “my trusted associate,” “my representative” and “my friend” by hinting it was all sweet talk and altogether innocent. Bear in mind, dear reader, this was in 2007 when Huntley was no longer in the service of the government of Saint Lucia. And yet, by his own account he continued in his unpaid “liaison role” between Grynberg and the King government, even as this government was seeking ways to extricate itself from Grynberg’s grasp.
Regardless of his convenient definitions, it should also be remembered that Huntley was the initiator of the whole oil shebang. He was also responsible for bringing Grynberg into the picture, therefore unlikely to say anything negative about him without spitting in his own face.
Candidly, the whole matter of whether Stephenson King inadvertently endorsed, then withdrew from, a Grynberg-related arrangement is relatively insignificant, much more than can legitimately be said about Kenny Anthony’s signature on more than one Grynberg document. What matters in the last analysis is that correspondence between the government and Grynberg makes it quite clear King & Company never intended continuing the relationship with Jack Grynberg that Kenny Anthony and Huntley started back in 2000.
Eleven years later nothing whatsoever has occurred that might’ve given King reason to renew it. Huntley himself had finally come round to advising the government to break the contract if Grynberg did not begin his explorations in 2008. (Obviously he had forgotten about the force majeure clause that
Grynberg invoked just six months after signing with Kenny Anthony and which, by all Grynberg’s lawyers have stated, keeps their contract in suspended animation, ready to come alive again the minute there are no longer any questions about our marine borders. Then again, perhaps Huntley did not forget!)
I wish Huntley had not brought his doubtless outstanding parents into this oily Grynberg mess. I am more than willing to take his word that they taught him all they knew about how to be an honest and uprightcitizen. From all Huntleysays about his mom and dad I can safely assume they would not have endorsed some of his decisions as a public servant. As for Huntley’s own sense of right and wrong, suffice it to say that on this subject the Helenites controversy has already spoken volumes!

   Internet voting is on and popping for the Miss Universe competition and will be open until Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 6pm ET. Participants will be limited to ten votes per email address per day. The sole means of voting is via the Internet.
St Lucians can vote for Joy Ann to win People’s Choice, allowing her to advance to the top 15. All you have to do is visit abc.com or missuniverse.com. Everyone has up to 10 votes per day, per e-mail address.
“They arranged it in a way that even the smaller countries are going to benefit from it this year so we’ll be fine, just do your part,” Joy Ann told the STAR. “It may sound cliché, but I know that unity is strength, I can’t do it on my own! Fans can also check out my Facebook fan page.”
Joy Ann’s popularity has already begun building on the Internet and comments like, “I really like Miss St Lucia, a spontaneous beauty and perhaps a serious contender for Miss Congeniality this year!” and “A black beauty that may surprise us all” tell of the positive impression the St Lucian contestant has already set on people from all over the world.
“I find her pretty. I hope she will have enough fierceness and hotness come competition time,” wrote another online blogger. “I wish this girl the best. One of the best black candidates this year in my opinion.”
Little do they know about our fiery and super bubbly Joy Ann, otherwise they wouldn’t bother questioning whether she has what it takes. Joy Ann is presently in São Paulo, Brazil getting set for the pageant on September 12. We wish her all the best. Log on and vote now!

   Word of yet another resignation from the United Workers Party is being widely reported as the party gears up its election campaign machinery, following the successful triple launch of candidates in Vieux Fort Sunday.
Marcus Nicholas, the Dennery North parliamentary representative is said to have resigned as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly and as a member of the United Workers Party.
This latest surprise from the party is set against the backdrop of the resignation from the same party of Jeanine Compton Antoine, the parliamentary representative for Micoud North.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mrs. Antoine, daughter of the UWP’s co-founder and former prime minister, deceased Sir John Compton, gave a long list of problems she had with certain influential members of the party, including the prime minister and cited several grievances against the UWP administration where her constituency and herself as their parliamentary representative were concerned.
While it is still unclear as to the real reasons prompting Nicholas’ dissatisfaction with the party and his subsequent resignation, sources close to the party have indicated that he had lost touch with his constituents and that his stewardship had been in question for a very long time.