CCN cellular case
Ragbir shows short memory
July 13, 2000
By Kim Johnson
CCN ATTORNEY Alvin Fitzpatrick SC yesterday further interrogated Director of Telecommunications Winston Ragbir in the CCN constitutional motion before Justice Sebastien Ventour in the San Fernando High Court.
Ragbir had dismissed the CCN proposal to establish a cellular phone system on grounds that it did not meet the requirements of the advertised Request for Proposals.
Fitzpatrick continued his queries from the day before into Ragbir’s authority in the Telecommunications Division of the Ministry. Ragbir was less amenable than on Tuesday, though, and resisted agreeing with the attorney’s conclusions.
Ragbir did not remember or recognise his own letter of appointment as chairman of a 1994 Technical Advisory Committee. He did not know of the establishment of the 1998 Technical Advisory Committee, nor did he know about an evaluation procedure document prepared by his Permanent Secretary, nor did he ever enquire of such things.
Ragbir also forgot that he had sworn in an affidavit that there were no such documents.
“How could you swear what was in the Ministry’s possession without enquiring of the Minister or the Permanent Secretary? You made no enquiries?” asked Fitzpatrick. “You treat affidavits with recklessness!”
Ragbir’s Minister and Permanent Secretary didn’t bother to appoint him to, or even inform him of their new Technical Advisory Committee chaired by St Clair King. Nor did they tell him of their written project evaluation rules.
“The inescapable conclusion is the Minister did not have confidence in you,” said Fitzpatrick.
Ragbir replied, “I disagree.”
Fitzpatrick then questioned him on the Request for Proposals. Ragbir grudgingly agreed that interconnection proposals needed only be made, and did not have to confirm with what Ragbir wanted.
Then he became reluctant. He didn’t agree that a cellular system design had to be computer generated. “You could put up a site and measure it,” Ragbir countered, admitting however, that it required his approval to put up a site, which was given to no one.
Ragbir conceded (contra his affidavit) that the CCN proposal did contain the required market projections, but he insisted the proposals required letters of intent from financial institutions to show the companies could fund the project.
“So if they could show they had US$200 million in cash deposits—a deposit certificate isn’t a letter of intent—would they qualify?” asked Fitzpatrick.
“No,” answered Ragbir, “It had to be a letter of intent.”
Ragbir disagreed that a national was either a natural person born or naturalised here or a corporation incorporated here. He refused to divulge whether his top listed applicant, Gillette’s Open Telecom, was owned by nationals.
Ragbir said that CCN hadn’t sufficient experience, and he denied that CCN had an agreement to form a joint venture with Millicom International Cellular. It wasn’t enough for him that Millicom’s vice-president for Latin America had stated: “It is the commitment of Millicom International Cellular to participate in a joint venture with the Cisneros Group and CCN...”
“We needed more,” said Ragbir, who did admit, however, that Millicom’s operations in two dozen countries and over 455 million subscribers, did indeed comprise considerable experience. Hearing continues tomorrow.
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
|