Ragbir gets caught Lying
DIRECTOR of Telecommunications Winston Ragbir admitted under cross-examination by CCN attorney Alvin Fitzpatrick yesterday that several statements in his sworn affidavit were untrue.
Ragbir, the sole witness for the State in the CCN constitutional motion, had rejected the CCN proposal to establish a cellular service. His short list was supported by a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, on whose basis Prime Minister Basdeo Panday dismissed the report of Standing Technical Advisory Committee.
CCN has alleged that Panday's decision was biased and infringed the company's right to equality of treatment.
Ragbir swore on a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to tell the truth, and then admitted that he wasn't the Chief Technical Advisor to the government, as his affidavit claimed. He was not appointed to the Technical Committee appointed in October 1998 and chaired by St Clair King.
Indeed, he did not know of its establishment, although the Committee was appointed by Telecommunications Minister Rupert Griffith, and it included his Permanent Secretary John Prince.
Ragbir also admitted that when he rejected another cellular proposal for arriving late, he did not have the authority to do so.
He claimed that the 1994-1996 Technical Committee which he chaired had no technical expertise, although he admitted he did not know about the extensive qualifications and experience of member St Clair King.
It was Ragbir who, having been in government since 1984, had no working experience of cellular systems.
Ragbir promised to send his report to the Minister on all the cellular applications. His affidavit also stated that he gave the report to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Yesterday he admitted that his “report” on the ten unsuccessful applicants consisted of one sentence.
The accounting firm listed ten forms of relevant documents necessary to evaluate the proposals, of which Ragbir only provided two: his report on the three shortlisted companies and the 13 proposals.
The eight-page PricewaterhouseCoopers report included six pages criticising Ragbir's Request For Proposals, and suggestions for their improvement in future. Fitzpatrick read to the court, for example:
“Proposals of this nature are both complex and costly to prepare. A broad range of experience is necessary to develop all the criteria required and to assess the responses. In this instance, the evaluation was carried out by an individual and for reasons of security of information the individual had no opportunity to discuss issues.”
Ragbir replied, “That's not critical, it's a good suggestion, an ideal.”
Before state attorney Fenton Ramsahoye SC had time to object Fitzpatrick got Ragbir to agree that the PricewaterhouseCoopers evaluation report only applied to the three he had shortlisted.
Hearing continues today.
July 13, 2000: Ragbir shows short memory
July 14, 2000: No to TSTT, yes to foreign cable monopoly
July 19, 2000: PM free to be hostile
July 20, 2000: Cabinet Not PM Decides
Back / Home
|