Each year the Minister of Finance does a Budget presentation in Parliament, which comprises a Budget Address; revenue estimates; expenditure estimates and it has become customary to table the Audit Report at the same time. 

Having examined all of the Estimates for the last fifteen years, your attention is drawn to Appendix 2 of the Expenditure and Revenue Estimates captioned “DEBT SERVICING CHARGES”, which is a schedule of all of the debts acknowledged and being serviced by the Government. That schedule has never listed any debts in relation to Hydrofoils.

The Italian Government has taken no legal action, either in the courts of St Kitts, in Italy or England where the law relating to sovereign immunity from suit would not appear to allow any escape for the St Kitts and Nevis Government according to the Blom Cooper Commission of Inquiry Report.

WHAT’S MORE, EVEN IF WE WERE LIABLE FOR ANY DEBTS FROM THE HYDROFOIL TRANSACTION, BY 2007/2008 THAT DEBT WOULD HAVE BEEN “STATUTE BARRED” UNDER THE LAWS OF ST. KITTS AND NEVIS. If legal advice was given to make that payment, that lawyer is not worth his salt.

So why has the Douglas Government paid $11million dollars for the so-called eradication of this so-called debt? Upon whose advice did the Government pay that sum? Was there legal advice given?

Can the Government provide all relevant documentation to satisfy us that the payment was really made to eradicate this so-called debt?

Would the Government produce the Treasury and Bank transactions so that we can see that none of those funds were transferred to the LEX CONSULTING bank account, or to any Bank account under the control of local beneficiaries associated with the Labour Party?

When asked by the news agencies about the payment of that $11 million dollars after the news circulated on the St. Kitts list, Hon. Timothy Harris who was Minister in 2008 when a part of or the whole transaction was carried out, said, that he had no knowledge of that important transaction; our Financial Secretary had no knowledge of that transaction; our Auditor General has not commented on such a significant transaction; our government press secretary directed the question to a former Attorney General who has not yet answered the question.

However, Prime Minister Douglas has some two weeks after the quiet evasive period, answered the question but his answer raises a myriad of questions.

If St. Kitts and Nevis has been defaulting on its debt since 2008 and has been dragged kicking and screaming into an IMF structural adjustment program in 2010; has been asking those persons and institutions that the country owes to take a haircut of 60%; has defaulted in paying interest on the Bonds in November 2011, can the Government explain why the secret payment was made of $11 million dollars for a debt that was not acknowledged by us, or for which the Italian Government has taken no legal action for settlement either in the courts of St Kitts, in Italy, or England?

There is no Freedom of Information Act; no Integrity in Public Life Act; no transparency in Government; and the public and public officials appear oblivious to the fact that matters such as these are core issues for demanding sunshine in our Government.

Was this money really paid for the settlement of a debt to the Italian Government, or some fictitious company? Was it paid to lawyers to negotiate settlement of a debt that we did not owe? Who were the negotiators engaged on our behalf? How much were they paid to make this “debt” go away? Into which bank accounts was this sum paid? Why did the Minister of Finance Timothy Harris not know about that transaction? Are there any other intermediaries involved who received payment for services that were not necessary? What is the name of the Debt Collection Agency? How long were these negotiations on-going? Is it fair that we should pay a so-called debt of $11 million while other legitimate creditors are asked to take a haircut of 60%?

Recall that the debt was not on our books so no appropriation was made for the payment of that debt, so how was it accomplished?

One cannot say definitively until all of the warrants are examined but huge sums began to be budgeted as Expense heads to be sent to trusted friends.

THE FOLLOWING STAND OUT:

In the 2005 Budget: Professional and Consultancy Fees of $400,000.00 on page 39; Professional and Consultancy Fees of $135,000.00 on page 41(OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER); Professional and Consultancy Fees of $1,215,050.00 on page 105; and Contingency Reserve $3,000,000.00, “a misnomer”, also on page 105 (MINISTRY OF FINANCE).

In the 2006 Budget: Consultancy Fees of $400,000.00 on page 39; Professional and Consultancy Fees of $150,000.00 on page 41 (OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER); Professional and Consultancy Fees of $2,117,625.00 on page 103; and Contingency Reserve $3,000,000.00, “a misnomer”, also on page 135 (MINISTRY OF FINANCE).

In the 2007 Budget: Professional and Consultancy Fees of $650,000.00 on page 47; Professional and Consultancy Fees of $225,206.00 on page 49 (OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER); Professional and Consultancy Fees of $2,000,000.00 on page 115; and Contingency Reserve $3,500,000.00, “a misnomer”, also on page 115 (MINISTRY OF FINANCE).

In the 2008 Budget: Significant changes were made to the preparation of the Estimates and in some ways obscured the line items as presented in the previous years; however, on page 10 the huge sums of $1,500,000.00 for managing National Archives and Records and another $1,500,000.00 for Invest in National Assets stand out like a sore thumb under a new category MEMORANDUM ITEMS (OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER); the sum of $8,894,000.00 under a new category OTHER EXPENSES stick out also like a sore thumb (MINISTRY OF FINANCE).

If the “Professional and Consultancy fees” and the “Contingency Reserves” have been used in 2007 to accomplish that $11 million dollar payment, then we are entitled to see and if the “Memorandum Items” or “Other Expenses” were used in 2008 then we are also entitled to see. As a matter of fact, as long as public monies have been spent for whatever purpose, we are entitled to question it and to receive full and satisfactory explanations. Would the Ministry confirm that is the case or indicate which expenditure Head was used to facilitate the payment? Also, would the Ministry make available the special warrants that were created to do so?