By Anna Ramdass From Trinidad Express

Integrity Commission deputy chairman Justice Sebastian Ventour yesterday tendered his resignation saying he was “flabbergasted” with the Commission’s decision to terminate its investigation into Emailgate.

Ventour invited the media to his St Joseph home yesterday after numerous requests for an interview. In the 19-minute interview he made it clear he was a man who stood on principle and could not stay with a Commission that misled the country.

The Integrity Commission, which has a history of being plagued with controversies, now faces potential collapse as prior to Ventour’s resignation, another member, Dr Shelly-Anne Lalchan, tendered her resignation on Wednesday.

However, when the Express visited Lalchan’s medical office at Endeavour Road, Chaguanas, yesterday, her relative said she was not prepared to speak at this time. He insisted that Lalchan’s resignation had nothing to do with Emailgate and it was a personal family issue that led to her decision.

Ventour on the other hand had no qualms in speaking his mind and dared anyone to challenge his position.

The retired High Court judge said the Commission did not sufficiently investigate Emailgate, adding that the content of the e-mails must also be looked into.

He repeated that the letter sent to Israel Khan SC on May 19 was “incorrect” and he himself was surprised to learn about it as he saw it on television.

In a letter dated May 19, 2015, the Commission’s registrar Martin Farrell wrote Israel Khan, SC, stating that pursuant to Section 34 (6) of the act, the commission was “satisfied that there was no or insufficient grounds for continuing the investigation” into Emailgate “and accordingly this investigation is hereby terminated”.

Khan is the legal counsel for Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and former attorney general Anand Ramlogan in the emailgate affair.

President Anthony Carmona appointed Justice Zainool Hosein in November last year to head the Commission with members Ventour, Lalchan, petroleum and environmental engineer Deonarine Jaggernauth and accountant Pete London.

Ventour disclosed the Commission held a meeting on Tuesday this week-the very day the letter was sent to Khan-and at that meeting he did not like the way the discussions were going and he left. He confirmed that Lalchan also left the meeting after him.

Despite two members walking out of the meeting, the chairman pressed on with the move to issue the letter to Khan.

According to Ventour, Emailgate is far from closed.

Efforts to contact Hosein yesterday proved futile as calls to his phone went unanswered.

The Office of the President is expected to make a statement today on this matter.
Following is the transcript of the interview conducted by reporters with Justice Ventour at his St Joseph home yesterday:

You confirm you have tendered your resignation?
Yes I have.

Is it related to Emailgate?
Yes it is.

In what way?
Because I didn’t like what was said to the public of Trinidad and Tobago, totally incorrect and I couldn’t be part of that. I just have no choice but to resign. I took an oath of office when I got my instrument of appointment to discharge my functions without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that implied a sense of being honest and truthful and when the decision was taken to put into the public domain what was said in that letter, I knew it was incorrect, not true and therefore I indicated I was not going to be part of this.

Is there insufficient grounds to continue the investigation?
Whatever is said in that letter is incorrect.

Did you find out about it (the letter) through the media?
That’s right.

Does that mean that all five people on the Commission did not sign off on that letter?
I don’t know.

How did it happen? Was a meeting called? Explain the process that took place.
We had a meeting and we discuss things at a meeting, we agree to disagree on matters. At the end of the day I think the chairman is the one responsible for the decisions based on the discussions following a meeting by the members of the Integrity Commission.

Is your decision based on the fact that there is outstanding information that has been requested by the Integrity Commission that has not been furnished?
I am totally flabbergasted how anyone can say that we have brought the investigation to an end and we have seen it fit to inform those who, I don’t want to call names at this stage, those who are involved to say that we can go no further.

Did you tender your resignation itself today in person?
Yes, in person.

Did you state your reason to the chairman?
No.

What is your relationship with the chairman and how do you think the chairman handled the situation?
The chairman is pretty good, we agree to disagree as in every organisation.

Would you link him in particular to the outcome of this probe. Do you think his tenure is untenable now?
No, I have no comment on that.

Did the chairman force this upon members?
No I wouldn’t say so at all.

Do you believe you are the only member of the Commission who found out about it that way? (through the media)
No.

Is it possible this letter (to Khan) was dispatched without a quorum?
There are five members of the Commission. Three is a quorum.

Is it possible the letter was dispatched with fewer than three? Should a matter like this should have been dispatched without all five agreeing on it given the high profile nature of the matter?
We don’t all have to agree to come to a decision, very often we come to a disagreement but once there’s a majority….

Did you and Dr Shelly-Anne Lalchan leave that meeting when it was agreed or stated that this was going to be the statement?
I left before her. I didn’t like how the discussion was progressing.

On your departure you knew what the result was but didn’t know about the letter being dispatched? Did that take you completely by surprise?
It did.

What do you suggest be done now when the Prime Minister went to the Parliament yesterday and said she’s vindicated by the Integrity Commission, the only last body to give a judgment on this right now is the police, do you think the Integrity Commission should re-open its investigation at this point in time?
Oh, that is not for me to say, a decision has been made, in my absence. I query the correctness of that statement and I am pretty sure I cannot be contradicted, I dare anyone to contradict me.

So this case should not be closed at this point in time?
In my view? NO.

That statement that was released was premature?
My words-incorrect.

No one is really is, as far as the Integrity Commission’s statement says, no one is really cleared per say because in your view the investigation is incomplete?
That’s not for me to say, I just disagree with the correctness of the statement. As a result of the statement, someone or individuals are cleared, so be it.

What would you have required for it to be complete?
If we had completed the investigation.

Which would have required what?
Several things. I took an oath of secrecy under the legislation, I am now allowed to talk about matters.

The Integrity Commission obtained through Google information which showed that emails addresses were fabricated such as [email protected] and there was no way emails sent or received from that address, so in your view, having a bogus address is not enough to clear this matter? Are you looking at the content? What are you looking at that you are not satisfied with?
That is an interesting question because I think that if you are doing an investigation you should not look at form but substance, that’s my view and the fact that Google had responded as to the form, I think one needs more than that.

When the meeting was called, was the chairman asked to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions and did he refuse?
I can’t answer that.

What should the people of Trinidad and Tobago do if there is no faith in the Integrity Commission, and what next?
I believe in honesty and truth and there are certain principles in life that we have to stand up firm for. When I took my oath the last thing I would have thought is that I would be part of any statement that would mislead the public of Trinidad and Tobago. I want no part of that. That in my view has been done, I am out.

Do you detect any political links within the Commission?
I can’t answer that.
Do you believe anyone was pressured into releasing that statement,or taking a position?
I wasn’t pressured, I cannot speak for the others.

Did you expect a conclusion in the Emailgate matter?
Absolutely not.

Given this strong position you have taken, do you think the Integrity Commission can continue?
That’s for the President to decide.

Do you think the Integrity Commission is necessary and it’s able to carry out its functions considering that this will lead to a collapse?
Why do you think it has to collapse? We are not indispensable, neither of us, Dr Lalchan or myself. And it may be that the President might see it fit to appoint two persons to replace us. The Commission goes on. I think the Integrity Commission is an absolute necessity in a country that has respect for values, integrity etc.

Can you put on the table any reasons why an inaccurate conclusion would have been arrived at this juncture or before the investigation, in your view, came to an end?
– Let me ask a question that letter that came from the Integrity Commission, do you remember?

Reporter: that there are no or insufficient grounds to continue.
Ventour: That is incorrect…we have not yet in my view investigated the Emailgate, we have not.

At all or thoroughly or sufficiently well?
Sufficiently well. Yes, we have dealt with Google, Google has responded, what about the other matters…Several names were mentioned, what happened to the others. Is it because we only got two (names) that’s the end of the investigation for Emailgate? Come on now.

You are stating publicly your position through the media, but at the end of the day the allegations made in Emailgate are very grave…do you think your resigning is enough, shouldn’t you go a bit further and call for a re-opening of the case or the resignation of the chairman?
That would be very improper of me to think along those lines, calling for the resignation of the chairman, I won’t do that.

But you do not think that based on the premature conclusion that the investigation should not continue under that directorship?
Maybe it should, but that is not for me to decide, I have expressed my views and as a result of the views I have expressed, I decided to part ways with the Integrity Commission because I believe that is the right thing to do.

Are you concerned that if this investigation is not thoroughly investigated…what about other matters? Does that not bother you?
Anything that is wrong bothers me. If the conclusion that is wrong, then I will certainly be bothered.

What’s next for you?
For me? Integrity has to mean something for the people of Trinidad and Tobago and if it doesn’t it, then I am sorry. I stand by principle, let’s just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, let’s just do that. I just want to stand up for what is right, was is truthful and what is honest.

Your understanding is that Dr Lalchan would have probably felt in the same way that you do?
I would like to think so.

She’s indicated personal reasons.
That’s a matter for Dr Lalchan to deal with.

The Integrity Commission as it stands now can be politically infiltrated?
What does that mean? Sounds like a coup, I don’t know.

For more on this story go to: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20150521/news/ventour-resigns