I MUST CONFESS that, like quite a few Barbadians, I was taken aback by the “I have the list” declaration last week by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart in the House of Assembly.
It appeared to me that he was condemning individuals who had invested in the suspiciously high-yielding CLICO Executive Flexible Premium Annuity.
“I have a list, because I requested it, of all the persons who invested in the [risky, but lucrative] Executive Flexible Premium Annuity (EFPA) – I have a list of all of them, and I ain’t saying anything yet, I ain’t do nothing yet.
“I know all the people who wanted quick money, who were entranced by the lure of the attractive interest rate. I know them, I have all of the names!”
My question is: When you condemn the buyer [and maybe rightly so], how come the seller escapes your tongue?
Stuart, pointing out that he felt the original CLICO Oversight Committee should have been maintained, said: “The millions of dollars that I am hearing about that have had to be paid to judicial managers – I mean, dizzying millions – we wouldn’t have had to pay and we would, in my view, have made a little more progress in this matter.”
Again, the payment of millions to the judicial managers is certainly not above question, but how about a question or two about the millions others apparently got out of CLICO over the years that so concerned the same judicial managers?
At this stage, I could not help but wonder on whose side the Prime Minister is batting when it comes to this CLICO saga. Quite a few people have felt the wrath of his tongue on this subject, but there are others who, it seems, everyone but the Prime Minister is concerned about.
Look at the excerpts taken from our library files, going back to when Stuart was Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General and see if, like me, they leave you wondering which side he has been representing at the crease.
• March 7, 2009 – House of Assembly during no-confidence motion against then Prime Minister and Minister of Finance David Thompson over his handling of the CLICO affair at that time:
“I have heard nothing in here today to shake my faith in CLICO or in the Minister of Finance,” he stated, adding that in practising law for the last 25 years he had never seen CLICO fail to settle its claims.
“I came here today expecting to hear some dramatic disclosure that would shake my knowledge or understanding of CLICO. I’ve heard no such thing and therefore I want to signal to this House and to the country immediately that this motion does not qualify for my personal support. I will be voting against it! My faith in the Minister of Finance remains intact.”
• May 2, 2010 – House of Assembly:
“The very fact that the Government established the Oversight Committee is proof … that the issue is not one lost on the Government and that we have confidence in the persons who constitute the committee.
“We are determined to ensure that not only are the jobs of people associated with that insurance company protected as best we can, but that the investments of people as well.”
• August 18, 2010 – House of Assembly:
“You don’t get the impression that CLICO has been responsible by its activities in many areas of generating a lot of the employment that Barbados enjoyed over the last two decades.
“We are all given the impression that because there was a friendship between the CEO of CLICO and the leader of the Democratic Labour Party that by that fact itself, CLICO is some kind of corporate leper that everybody should try and shun for fear of contamination and so it was again today.”
• March 17, 2011 – Estimates debate in House of Assembly:
Describing Leroy Parris as a long-time friend and a one-time client who was definitely not a “leper”, he said: “I don’t disown him. He’s not a leper. I don’t agree with everything he does. I have never agreed with everything he’s done, but like all other Barbadians he has worked his way up and he has had his ups and downs. But he is not a leper.”
• March 11, 2012 – after returning from CARICOM summit:
“I am not in a position to comment on any revelation made . . . There are people talking about a report which I have never seen. Until I read that report, I am not in a position to say anything . . . .
“I am hearing about those people who had access to the report, but the Prime Minister has had no access.
“Until I glean that report, there is nothing that I can say. The NATION has had access to the report and the Opposition . . . [and] I can assure you that when I see the report and I am able to read it, that I would make such comments as I deem appropriate.”
• June 29, 2012 – Budget debate in House of Assembly:
“It was then Registrar Basil Murray who wrote a letter to the Supervisor of Insurance informing him that this product was out there in the marketplace, was not an insurance product, and that he (Murray) wanted the Supervisor to take appropriate action . . ..
“The Supervisor of Insurance came under the jurisdiction of the then Minister of Finance, and then Prime Minister, the honourable Member for St Peter [Owen Arthur]. The Supervisor of Insurance did not have unbridled jurisdiction in the matter. Knowledge available to the supervisor on that issue can appropriately be fixed on the Minister of Finance of that day, because anything the Supervisor did, according to the law, he did subject to the minister.”
• October 28, 2012 during a Press conference following a mass canvass of the St George North and South and St Michael North-East constituencies at Workman’s, St George:
“We are committed to the best interests of the policyholders of CLICO and from that commitment we are not about to resile.”
