作者： admin

The Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC), the country’s state-owned power utility, has formally initiated pre-legal action against Port of Spain South Member of Parliament Keith Scotland, a senior counsel, and associate attorney Keisha Kydd-Hannibal, alleging professional misconduct that led to the permanent loss of more than $2.39 million in outstanding public funds.

The pre-action protocol letter, delivered Monday by Freedom Law Chambers led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, outlines multiple legal claims against the two legal professionals, including professional negligence, breach of client contract, fraudulent and negligent misstatement, and intentional deceit. The proposed lawsuit stems from T&TEC’s years-long failed effort to recover $2,392,220.11 in unpaid electricity bills from local food manufacturing firm Flavorite Foods Ltd.

Under the terms of the letter, T&TEC is seeking full compensatory damages equal to the total value of the unrecoverable debt, plus accrued interest, all accumulated legal costs, and compensation for additional related losses. The utility has also signaled it will pursue aggravated and exemplary damages to address the gravity of the alleged misconduct.

The controversy first became public earlier this October, when Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar addressed the allegations from the floor of Parliament. During her address, the Prime Minister accused Scotland of mishandling the debt recovery litigation, confirmed that the state utility would pursue formal legal action, and announced the matter would be referred to the national Fraud Squad for criminal investigation. She also noted that disciplinary proceedings before the Trinidad and Tobago Law Association could be launched against the attorneys in the coming weeks.

Shortly after the parliamentary announcement, Scotland spoke to reporters outside the legislative chamber and denied all wrongdoing, challenging the Prime Minister to repeat her accusations outside of Parliament, where she is protected by parliamentary privilege that shields her from defamation claims. “I invite the Prime Minister to make these claims outside of the Parliament,” Scotland stated at the time.

He has consistently maintained that court proceedings were properly initiated against Flavorite Foods, and has produced official court documents that he says confirm his team followed all required procedures. Scotland has also forcefully rejected unconfirmed suggestions that he maintained an improper personal or professional relationship with Flavorite chairman Louis André Monteil, calling collusion allegations baseless and gravely damaging to his reputation.

When reached for comment Monday following the delivery of the pre-action letter, Scotland declined to make any additional public statement, noting only that he would respond to all allegations fully through his own legal team.

The 17-page pre-action letter, drafted by Freedom Law Chambers attorney Ganesh Saroop, centers on three separate lawsuits filed against Flavorite Foods between 2022 and 2024, none of which have resulted in a final court judgment against the indebted company. T&TEC alleges that the first two claims were never properly advanced through the court system and were ultimately struck from the docket, while the third lawsuit was filed without the utility’s knowledge, formal authorization, or required court approval.

“Three claims were commenced, and not one was brought to judgment,” the letter notes, outlining the breakdown of the litigation process. For months, T&TEC leaders say they were repeatedly assured by the two attorneys that default judgment applications had been submitted to the court and were just awaiting administrative processing from court officials. But internal checks and official court confirmation revealed that no such applications had ever been filed with the court.

“The court records, and the Registrar’s own confirmations, establish that no request or application for default judgment was ever filed in either the 2022 or the 2023 claim,” the letter states. “T&TEC was thus led to believe that the delay lay with the administration of the Court, when its true cause was the failure of its own attorneys to take the most basic procedural steps.” Due to these procedural delays and missteps, the statute of limitations has now expired on the debt, leaving it permanently unrecoverable, T&TEC argues.

The timeline of the retainer traces back to October 2022, when T&TEC hired Scotland, who was then practicing through Virtus Chambers, to pursue the unpaid debt after Flavorite Foods failed to respond to an initial pre-action demand letter. Per the retainer agreement, T&TEC says Kydd-Hannibal was assigned to manage most day-to-day correspondence and litigation logistics, while Scotland served as lead counsel and provided strategic guidance on the case.

The utility alleges the first claim, filed in December 2022, was never properly served on Flavorite Foods and automatically expired per court rules. A second claim, filed in October 2023, suffered the same fatal procedural flaws, according to the complaint. Throughout 2024, T&TEC says Kydd-Hannibal repeatedly updated the utility that the default judgment application had been filed and was awaiting review from the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

In one January 2024 message included as evidence in the letter, Kydd-Hannibal allegedly wrote: “Yes it was, the Clerk is following up with the counter.” A later update claimed the application was “before the Registrar for consideration.” T&TEC confirms these statements are false, as court records show no application was ever submitted.

Most notably, the utility alleges that a third claim was filed in T&TEC’s name on October 22, 2024, without required authorization from T&TEC’s corporate secretary or board of directors. The letter also directs sharp criticism at Scotland for continuing to advise on the case after his appointment to the national Cabinet in July 2024, raising questions about compliance with parliamentary and ethical standards for sitting cabinet members. T&TEC says it will present evidence that Scotland continued to shape litigation strategy, recommended withdrawing and refiling a previous application, and even communicated directly with a court Registrar regarding the case, despite his cabinet position.

Both Scotland and Kydd-Hannibal have been given a 28-day window to respond to the pre-action letter, requiring them to explicitly state whether they admit or deny liability and address each allegation outlined in the document. T&TEC has warned that if a satisfactory response addressing all claims is not received within the timeframe, formal civil proceedings will be launched immediately without further notice, and additional disciplinary complaints will be filed with legal regulatory bodies.

A recent independent legal analysis prepared by a senior University of the West Indies academic has cast serious doubt over the legal standing of Caricom Secretary-General Carla Barnett’s second term, arguing that the reappointment process violated core articles of the Caribbean bloc’s foundational governing treaty.

Rajendra Ramlogan, a professor of commercial and environmental law based at UWI’s St. Augustine campus in Trinidad and Tobago, released the formal legal opinion this week. In the document, he clarified that his critique targets procedural flaws in the reappointment process, not Barnett herself, focusing narrowly on whether the regional body followed the constitutional mandates laid out in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Barnett’s second five-year term was approved during a closed-door, heads-of-government-only retreat held in Nevis, which took place after the conclusion of the 50th Regular Meeting of the Caricom Conference of Heads of Government in February. Ramlogan’s core argument holds that this closed retreat does not qualify as a legally constituted meeting of the full Conference, and therefore lacked the legal authority to make a formal appointment to the Secretary-General post.

The opinion highlights two key treaty violations. First, it cites Article 11(2) of the Revised Treaty, which guarantees every member state’s head of government the right to appoint an alternate minister or representative to attend Conference meetings when the head is unable to attend. Ramlogan notes that this right was entirely sidelined during the Nevis retreat: attendance was restricted exclusively to sitting heads of government, blocking designated alternates from participating. The case of Trinidad and Tobago illustrates this breach: after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar left the main summit early, Foreign and Caricom Affairs Minister Sean Sobers stepped in as the country’s acting head of delegation, but was barred from the retreat. Multiple other member states whose heads could not attend the retreat faced identical restrictions on their designated representatives.

While Ramlogan acknowledges that Caricom’s internal rules allow for closed heads-only deliberations in informal settings, he emphasizes that such caucuses cannot exercise formal treaty-mandated decision-making authority. “A heads-only caucus may be lawful as a deliberative setting,” Ramlogan wrote, “but a heads-only caucus cannot become the final decision-maker where the Conference is exercising a formal Revised Treaty function.”

Second, the opinion finds the process failed to meet the requirements laid out in Article 24 of the treaty, which mandates that the Secretary-General must be appointed by the Conference of Heads only after receiving a formal recommendation from the Community Council of Ministers. Ramlogan rejected the claim that reappointment of an incumbent Secretary-General is exempt from this requirement, noting that a second term constitutes an entirely new grant of authority after the expiration of the first fixed five-year term. Since the Community Council was never consulted and never issued a recommendation, the process undermined the treaty’s designed balance of institutional power.

The opinion also raises additional red flags: it questions unconfirmed reports that the decision was approved via majority vote rather than the consensus normally required for Caricom decisions, and points out that the official post-summit communiqué made no mention of Barnett’s reappointment at all.

In his closing summary, Ramlogan confirmed that the heads-only attendance restriction directly violated the Revised Treaty by stripping member states like Trinidad and Tobago of their legally guaranteed participation rights. The exclusion of designated alternate representatives, he concluded, renders Barnett’s reappointment “constitutionally defective and potentially void.”