Peter D. Chiquot
Morne Du Don
Castries
Saint Lucia
Dear Mr. Chiquot,
Re. Complaints of Corrupt Conduct by Public Officers and Officials
Pursuant to my letter dated September 12, 2024 acknowledging receipt on September 10, 2024 of your complaints dated September 9, 2024, I wish to provide you with the following update on the major action I have taken in respect to the complaints.
But first, some clarity about the Special Prosecutor Act and its application to criminal corrupt conduct.
Corrupt conduct is not a specific offence, but a description of the rubric under which specific conducts are deemed and listed as corrupt offences. Misfeasance in public office and misbehaviour in public office are two such specific offences of corrupt conduct. Misfeasance is defined in section 3 (b) of the Schedule as a reference to the civil cause of action; Misbehavior in Public Office is particularly defined in sections 2 and 3(a) of the Schedule as a criminal breach of public trust with no reasonable explanation.
All of the complaints arise from matters that occurred before August 16, 2022 when the Special Prosecutor Act came into force. Since the Act in its criminal jurisdiction may not be applied retrospectively to criminal acts or omissions that occurred before it came into force (the ex post facto principle: “retroactively changing the legal consequences of criminal actions after they have already occurred; Const. of St. Lucia, Sec.8 (4): “ A person shall not be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that might have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.”), the complaints of alleged criminal corrupt conduct are not justiciable under the Special prosecutor Act #19 of 2022. This does not automatically put an end to the complaints since valid complaints may be subject to the provisions of other enactments, e.g., the Criminal Code.
Complaints against Dr. Ernest Hilaire:
1. The complainant alleged offences of ‘corrupt misconduct’, misfeasance in public office, misbehaviour in public office, corrupt conspiracy in the non-renewal of appointment of Acting Comptroller of Customs, and slander. The Special Prosecutor’s examination (section 27 of the Special Prosecutor’s Act) of the factual and legal content of the particulars and of the several exhibits submitted with the complaints, disclosed no prima facie evidence of the allegations made against Dr. Hilaire. Dr. Hilaire’s support of a decision by the Prime Minister lawfully and properly exercising his discretion not to support the renewal of Mr. Chiquot’s acting post was not a corrupt conspiracy, nor does it amount to misbehaviour or misfeasance in public office. The exhibits submitted by the Complainant (Mr. Chiquot) in these matters revealed Dr. Hilaire using good faith legitimate means (legal counsel and legal action) to resist Mr. Chiquot’s legitimate demands under section 102: this is not corrupt conduct; nor is it a corrupt abuse of Dr. Hilaire’s authority as a public official to institute civil proceedings against Mr. Chiquot (Acting Comptroller of Customs) given the provision of section 129 of the Customs Act. Section 129 is not an absolute bar to Dr. Hilaire instituting the civil claim, but it is notice to the Court to reject any claim that the Court is satisfied runs counter to the provision of section 129. The allegation of libel and/or slander is not within the prosecuting jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor under the Special Prosecutor Act.
2. All of the complaints arise from matters that occurred before August 16, 2022 when the Special prosecutor Act came into force. Since the Act in its criminal jurisdiction may not be applied retrospectively to criminal acts or omissions that occurred before it came into force, the complaints of alleged criminal corrupt conduct by Dr. Hilaire are not justiciable under the Special prosecutor Act #19 of 2022. This does not automatically put an end to the complaints since valid complaints may be subject to the provisions of other enactments, e.g., the Criminal Code, but the complaints against Dr. Hilaire are not valid complaints of corrupt conduct.
3. The Special Prosecutor has, therefore, concluded that there is no merit in the allegations against Dr. Ernest Hilaire, and thus no valid reason for investigation of the complaints.
Complaint against the Honorable Attorney General, Leslie Mondesir:
1. The complaints by Mr. Peter Chiquot (Complainant) allege against the Honorable Attorney General (A. G.) offences of misbehavior in public office for refusal or failure to provide legal representation pursuant to Staff Order 4.20; for conferring with Comptroller of Customs on summary criminal file and civil claim re. Dr. Ernest Hilaire; for failure of the A. G. to recuse himself from the case because he was Dr. Hilaire former defense counsel in the matters; for A. G.’s withdrawal of the counter suit against Dr. Hilaire without Dr. Hilaire reciprocally withdrawing his claim against the Complainant; and criminal conspiracy with Comptroller of Customs to compound the summary criminal cases against Dr. Hilaire.
2. The allegation of refusal or failure of the A. G. to respond to and provide requested legal representation, pursuant to Staff Order 4.20, to the Complainant in Dr. Hilaire’s civil claim action against the Complainant in the light of the provision of section 129 of the Customs Act, and thus forcing Mr. Chiquot to finance his own defense, may well be in contravention of section 421 of the Criminal Code and thus merits further investigation. The A. G. meeting with the Acting Comptroller of Customs on October 7, 2021 and on December 7, 2021 to discuss the status of the case against Dr. Hilaire and Dr. Hilaire’s civil claim against the complainant and the A. G. does not qualify as corrupt conduct. The A. G. was performing his duty as the chief legal adviser and defender of the government in civil suits. It is A. G’s function to overseer and manage such civil claims and resolve them as far as is legal and favorable to the government. The A. G and the Acting Comptroller of Customs were both defendants in Dr. Hilaire’s civil claim. The summary criminal cases were matters germane to the civil litigation. It was the A. G’s responsibility to pursue a resolution that was fair and just to all parties. He did so in conjunction with the Comptroller of customs, and their actions in this regard do not amount to corrupt conduct. His action was not an unlawful conspiracy nor corrupt conduct simply because the A. G. before ascending to the post was the defense attorney of Mr. Hilaire, and did not recuse himself from the matter. Propriety may have required that he voluntarily recuse himself, but failure to do so does not constitute corrupt conduct. Dr. Hilaire was not A. G’s client as the complaint alleges; the A. G. acted on behalf of the Government of St. Lucia. Instruction to his staff to withdraw the countersuit was well within the jurisdiction of the A. G. in pursuing a just settlement of the matter.
3. The Special Prosecutor, therefore, concluded, that except for the allegation of the refusal or failure of the Honorable Attorney General to provide legal advice and defense to Mr. Chiquot in Dr. Ernest Hilaire’s civil matter against him, and which merits investigation, the other complaints are without merit and require no investigation by the Special Prosecutor.
4. Investigation of the said allegation meriting investigation required a response from the A. G. to the complaint. The A. G. provided the Special Prosecutor with a thorough and documented response which included a NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE FIRST DEFENDANT (Peter D. Chiquot, Acting Comptroller of Customs) dated 29th June 2022 and filed 30th June, 2022. This response provided evidence that the A. G., through his subordinates, provided Mr. Chiquot with due and effective representation that resulted in Dr. Heliare’s discontinuance of his civil claim against Mr. Chiquot (Acting Comptroller of Customs). Further, Mr. Chiquot had or ought to have had knowledge of that status of the matter at the time of the submission of this particular complaint to the Special Prosecutor. If in fact, he did, he may have run the risk of making a false complaint.
5. As matters now stand, all the complaints against the A. G. are without merit.
6. A copy of the joint response of the Hon. A.G. and Mr. Sherman Emmanuel is available upon request.
Complaint against Mr. Sherman Emmanuel, Comptroller of Customs: (Relevant Period: October 4, 2021 to December 8, 2021)
1. The complaint alleges the following conduct by Mr. Sherman Emmanuel to be corrupt conduct by a public officer:
(1) Meeting with the Honorable Attorney General A.G.) on …. And on … to discuss the status of litigation against and by Dr. Ernest Hilaire re custom matters.
(2) The Comptroller of Customs (Comptroller) refusal to represent the interest of Mr. Chiquot pursuant to section 129 of the Customs Act,
(3) Dereliction of duty in not enforcing Customs laws
(4) Refusal to respond to Mr. Chiquot’s request for clarification of communication between them.
(5) Unilaterally withdrawing summary criminal cases against Dr. Hilaire.
(6) Consulting with and taking legal advice from subordinates without requisite legal knowledge and experience.
2. The Comptroller meeting with the A.G. to discuss litigation in which both were defendants and for which the A.G. had a legal obligation to ensure due progress, the protection of the interest of the government and the Acting Comptroller of Customs, and equitable justice for all, does not constitute corrupt conduct in any way. The Comptroller is authorized under section 125 of the Customs Act to unilaterally compound the cases against Dr. Hilaire, the advice of third parties notwithstanding, but he may not exercise his authority in such a manner that he disregards the interest of Mr. Chiquot under section 129, namely, not to be sued by Dr. Hilaire, for executing his duties under the Customs Act. Where such disregard causes Mr. Chiquot oppression, Mr. Emmanuel may be held to account. For executing his duties under section 102 of the Customs Act, the Comptroller is not failing to enforce Customs laws, nor is his lack of response to Mr. Chiquot request to clarify certain communication between them corrupt conduct as is evident from the exhibits submitted by the Complainant in this matter.
3. I have examined the complaints, the alleged particulars and exhibits and found them wanting in law and facts to constitute criminal corrupt conduct by Mr. Emmanuel, except for the allegation of Mr. Emmanuel’s allowing the dismissal of the criminal cases against Dr. Hilaire in exchange for Dr. Hilaire withdrawing the civil claim against the Attorney General but not against Mr. Chiquot (Comptroller of Customs, Ag.), and which merits investigation. This allegation is intertwined with the one against the A. G. that merited investigation.
4. Investigation of the said allegation meriting investigation required a response from Mr. Emmanuel to the said complaint against him. Mr. Emmanuel and the A. G. provided a join and thorough response which included a NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE FIRST DEFENDANT, (Peter D. Chiquot, Acting Comptroller of Customs) dated 29th June 2022 and filed 30th June, 2022. This Order effectively neuters the relevant complaint by Mr. Chiquot. Further, Mr. Chiquot had or ought to have had knowledge of the status of the matter at the time he submitted the complaint to the Special Prosecutor. If he did, he may have run the risk of making a false complaint.
5. As matters now stand, all the complaints against the Mr. Sherman Emmanuel are without merit.
COMPLAINT AGAINST CLAUDIUS FRANCIS (Relevant period: July 2021 to December 8, 2021)
1. The particulars of the complaint against Claudius Francis referenced defamation and /or slander, (matter which is outside the jurisdiction and ambit of the Special Prosecutor and Special Prosecutor Act) as corrupt conduct; also, the attendance at court in support of a colleague, and criminal conspiracy. There is nothing corrupt in the support given to his colleague and no evidence of criminal conspiracy on the part of Mr. Claudius. The complaints against Mr. Claudius are without merit.
COMPLAINT AGAINST HONOURABLE PHILIP J. PIERRE (Relevant Period: July 2021 to December 8, 2021)
The particulars of the complaints of misconduct are as follows:
1. For his actions to refuse the renewal of my acting as Comptroller of Customs to create the opening for another officer to be appointed to initiate the withdrawal of the criminal matters against Dr. Ernest Hilaire.
2. For his unprecedented attendance in the Court in support of his friend, comrade and Minister in his Cabinet, who had violated the provisions of section 102 of the Customs Act.
3. For his instruction to the Cabinet Secretary to inform me that both he and Dr. Ernest Hilaire were not prepared to continue with me as Comptroller and not renewing my acting appointment.
4. For creating an unfair advantage for Dr. Hilaire to escape prosecution in the three criminal matters filed in the Magistrate Court
5. For victimizing me as a public servant.
6. For his abuse of his power as Prime Minister.
Having examined the particulars and the exhibits submitted with them, for facts and law bordering on criminal corrupt conduct, I found no such evidence. There is no misconduct in public office in the Prime Minister choosing not to renew an acting contract that has expired; nor in his attendance at court in support of a colleague; nor any evidence of creating an unfair advantage for Mr. Hilaire as alleged, nor any evidence of him victimizing the complainant, or abusing his power as Prime minister. I find the complaints to be without merit and therefore no need for investigation.