Stop The Politics, Make CLICO Interim Judicial Report Public

Submitted by St George’s Dragon

 

Chris Sinckler, Minister of Finance

Politicians just don’t get it do they?

The money in CLICO is public money yet Chris Sinckler is in the papers today saying that he would deem it “irresponsible” and “highly unusual” for the Judicial Manager’s interim report on CLICO to be released to the public. This after the BAICO report has only been made available to those who make the trip to the FCS’s offices – no copying allowed.

Mr Sinckler should refamiliarise himself with the revised Insurance Act of Barbados under which the Judicial Manager is appointed. The preamble to the Act says it’s purpose is to “to strengthen the protection given to policy holders under the existing Act”. The main thrust of the Judicial Manager is to protect the interests of the policy holders.

Section 61 (3) of the Act says the (final) report “or a copy of the report shall be open for inspection by any person during official hours, at the registry of the court in which the report is filed or at such place as the Supervisor determines.” The intention of the Act is to protect the public’s money; the role of the Judicial manger is to do the same.

It is scandalous that the interim report is not available to the policy holders. Stop the paternal politics and put it on the internet Mr Sinckler.

32 thoughts on “Stop The Politics, Make CLICO Interim Judicial Report Public


  1. St George’s Dragon, how could making the interim report PUBLIC be in compliance with section 61(3)? What does section 61(3) have to do with the Minister of Finance? Is the report not the property of the court who appointed the JM? Come on.


  2. Normally, documents that are filed in the Registry are public documents, and should be made available to any person who is willing to pay the prescribed fee. However, within recent times everything at the Registration Department has changed for the worse. So don’t be surprised if they invent some procedure that prevents the public from seeing the report. Now, you can’t even get a death certificate without people invading your privacy asking foolish questions like why you need the document, as if it is their business.


  3. “Open for inspection by any person” is not identical to release to the public. Documents in the Registry are open to inspection by any person, or should be but they are not released to the public.


  4. jack spratt – what in section 61(3) would prohibit the report from being made available to the public on a website?

  5. Pingback: Stop The Politics, Make CLICO Interim Judicial Report Public | Barbados news


  6. You’re right David, politicians just don’t get it. This single issue will lose the election for the government, mark my words. It’s not so much that they have done little or nothing, it is the aura of obfuscation, cover-up and secrecy that leads everyone to think that there is a great big guilty secret in there somewhere.


  7. “This after the BAICO report has only been made available to those who make the trip to the FCS’s offices – no copying allowed.”

    So ther eis a copy that people can read, you just cant take it from there


  8. @john C Chapman: “So ther eis a copy that people can read, you just cant take it from there

    So take a small camera (like in any modern cell phone) and take multiple pictures of each page…

    It’s not rocket science….


  9. Firstly, there is a difference between BAICO and CLICO. The BAICO report is at the FCS office where it can be inspected. Why make it difficult for people to see it when the FCS could just post it on a website. I thought Government was meant to be striving for efficiency through IT?
    I would be very grateful if Christopher Halsall would help and take the photos of the report and post them as he has suggested. Most people do not have the time to do this.
    The CLICO report is different. The point here is that although the Act only sets out that the final report of the Judicial Manager has to be open for inspection at the court and there is no reference in the Act to any interim reports by the Judicial Manager and how they are to be dealt with, the whole thrust of the Act is that the court and the Judicial Manager act on behalf of the policy holders.
    How can it be in the interests of the policy holders not to let them see the interim report prepared by the Judicial Manger who is acting in their interests?
    My point about the politicians not getting it is simply that life has changed. People want information and transparency. Lack of transparency potentially means a cover-up; if there is no cover-up, why not let us know the facts?
    The Judicial Manger has reported on what happened to the policy holder’s money. Please let the policy holders know where they stand.


  10. @David: “Camera’s not allowed.

    Are cell phones?

    There is off-the-shelf kit which hides a camera within a pair of glasses.

    It seems weird to me that so much effort is being expended to hid what should be public knowledge.

    “Why?” seems to be the question of the day….


  11. that is the million dollar question Christopher. It already public knowledge that shortfall of liabilities has double since the revaluation of assets. Maybe there is more critical information on who valued them at that rate in the report that they don’t want people to know.


  12. @anthony: “Maybe there is more critical information on who valued them at that rate in the report that they don’t want people to know.

    Are you suggesting that perhaps those who speak publicly aren’t always speaking the truth?

    God forbid!


  13. I don’t think we should get too excited yet. The policyholders’ association should make an application to the court (and/or to the Financial Services Commission) to either get copies of all the JM reports for public circulation, or have the reports posted on a website for public access. We can then analyze the response to this request if necessary.


    • @the Scout

      We shall see but remember Barbados has foreign exchange restrictions and if CLICO Barbados was moving money to parent it in T&T it means there would have to be falsification of Central Bank documents to support the movement of money.

      The other point to note is that head of the policyholders in T&T recently stated in Barbados that CLICO has hard assets which can be liquidated and that it was not a ponzi.


    • The report needs to be made public but the government is aware this is an issue which carries rich public sentiment and they are using obsolete customs to contained information.

      As far as the CLICO matter is concerned and the parallels in T&T and across the region it will be impossible to contain the debate.


  14. Reports coming out of T&T are that the whole Clico matter appears to be a double ponzi scheme allegedly governed by Mr Duprey, does this extend to Barbados too?


  15. @Jack Spratt, you seem to be a hafa idiot, judging by your writings. When will Barbados do like Trinidad and bring some criminal charges to those who were in authority at CLICO. It is quite unfair what is happening with people’s money and now for Sinckler to come out wit this foolishness, we want to know what is in that report. I am sure if this was anywhere else in the world, Parris and the whole lot of them would have been behind bars already


  16. Let us not forget that if there is any damning evidence in that report which implicates anyone in the DLP, whether past or present, that information cannot be made public knowledge at this time when a general election draweth nigh It would be political correct and prudent to use all measures of hindrance to prevent this report from coming into the public domain at this and release it in when political damage is minimal


    • William Layne and others have called for a forensic audit. The public needs information so ensure Barbados CLICO story is not being manipulated by some. BU joins the call for the JM’s reports to be freely accessible by the public

      Clients’ money funded Duprey’s personal needs

      By Ria Taitt Political Editor

      Story Created: Jun 11, 2011 at 12:56 AM ECT

      Story Updated: Jun 11, 2011 at 12:56 AM ECT

      Money invested by CLICO policyholders and mutual fund investors was improperly used to fund the personal needs and lifestyle of Lawrence Duprey and other members of his family and his private companies.

      This is the assertion of the Central Bank in its Statement of Case, which was filed in the High Court on Tuesday.

      The Central Bank also stated that CLICO funding was used for the "pursuit of Mr Duprey’s personal global ambitions".

      "Mr Duprey and Mr Monteil procured CLICO to fund unsuitable and high-risk projects in pursuit of Mr Duprey’s personal global ambitions contrary to the interests of CLICO and its policyholders. These projects included real estate in Florida, acquisitions of European and Caribbean drinks companies, acquisitions of energy companies and ventures building methanol plants in the Caribbean and in the Gulf. The projects were characterised by little or no regard to the costs of borrowing, high leverage (because the bulk of money used was borrowed) and no, or no adequate, due diligence," it said.

      http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/_Clients__money_funded_Duprey_s_personal_needs_-123675114.html


    • He said while most companies had been adhering to the regulation, CLICO was one of the few that did not fully comply.

      Responding to queries why the bank did not intervene in CLICO before, Williams said CLICO met its Statutory Fund requirements in 2004, 2005 and 2006. The central bank’s calculation showed a Statutory fund deficit in 2007 but up to the time the crisis broke, CLICO was challenging their conclusion.

      How would the Central Bank of T&T allow CLICO to challenge? Isn’t Central of T&T the regulator?

      Was the deficit in the reserve fund in Barbados ever challenged in Barbados?

      Have we forgotten that Mia Mottly publicly stated that her government at the time had a comfort level with CLICO Trinidad hence there was a sluggishness to intervene, perhaps unconcern is the word.

      Will our JMs be ‘honest’ or will we get fudge?


  17. Of course there is always the hope that the Judicial Manger prove to be more enlightened than Mr Sinckler and will publish the interim report anyway.
    According to the information on Clico’s website, which looks as though it came from the Judicial Manager:
    “We are first required to produce an interim report to the court and we will seek to share our thoughts after the court has evaluated our report. We are also required to produce a more comprehensive report thereafter and we will seek to share our thooughts with you thereafter.”
    How about it Oliver Jordan and Patrick Toppin – let the policy holders ee the report.


  18. @St George’s Dragon…

    I find this site *very* interesting: http://www.clicoinfo.com/

    Quoting from it (in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section: “Q: Why should I continue to pay my premium?

    “A: Failure to pay your premium could result in a lapsed policy and a definite loss in all that you have invested.

    Hmmmm…

    So the policy holders aren’t allowed access to the interim report, but if they fail to continue to pay a company which may be bankrupt they may loose all they have invested.

    Again, hmmmmm….


  19. David
    Isn’t this the same Mia Mottley that has been calling for almost two years for the JM of Clico? This government has been blocking or stalling the JM, until it could not be held back any longer, while in the mean time it is alleged, certain persons were allowed to withdraw large sums of money. I see the policyholders are moblising themselves to bring the head of the Barbados branch and it’s directors to court, I hope it is also to justice. The longer this government delay this Clico matter, the harder it will be for them to win the next general elections, every day this Clico matter is getting more and more dirty.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.