Former President Wavel Ramkalawan and the Leader of the Opposition Bernard Georges have declined to respond to potential adverse findings issued by the Commission of Inquiry into the sublease and development of Assomption Island. They said the process did not comply with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
In a joint open response addressed to Commissioner Justice Mathilda Twomey and dated 26 June, the two men said they received notices on 12 June outlining matters on which the Commission was “minded to make findings or observations” adverse to them. The notices listed eight matters concerning Mr Ramkalawan. Additionally, they also listed five matters concerning Mr Georges.
The pair said they had been invited to submit written representations by 26 June. However, they stated that they would not address the potential adverse findings because they believed doing so would be premature. Furthermore, they said they had chosen to issue a joint response. They explained the legal issues they raised were common to both of them.
Ramkalawan and Georges said they opted to submit an open response because they believed the issues they raised were in the public interest and that the public deserved to know why they had chosen not to respond to the potential adverse findings.
The response noted that the Commission offered several options, including the opportunity to present further oral evidence. In addition, parties could request the recall of witnesses and seek copies or particulars of documents, transcripts or exhibits. All these options were subject to confidentiality and legal restrictions.
Ramkalawan and Georges said those options were offered on the basis that the Commission’s report was “substantially completed.” They also said that the notices did not represent final conclusions. Moreover, they noted that the Commission stated that no findings would be finalised until any representations had been considered.
The two men argued that these statements indicated that the report had not yet been finalised. They cited Rule 31 of the Commission’s Procedures and Rules, published in the Official Gazette on 23 December 2025. The rule provides for the preparation of a draft report containing findings, conclusions and recommendations before a final report is issued.
The rule also requires the Commission to identify persons who are the subject of adverse findings. It must provide them with the relevant portions of the draft report. In addition, it must invite written comments on factual matters and consider those comments before finalising the report. According to the rule, the process aims to ensure factual accuracy, allow corrections of misunderstandings, enhance fairness and credibility. It also permits clarification before publication.
However, the response stated that, on the same morning they received the Commission’s letter, media coverage showed Commissioner Twomey delivering what State House described as the Commission’s final report to President Patrick Herminie.
The pair said a State House press communication issued on the same day they received the notices described the report presented to President Patrick Herminie as the Commission’s final report.
Ramkalawan and Georges said Commissioner Twomey also stated publicly that the report had been submitted within the prescribed timeframe. They wrote that no correction had been issued to the State House release. Consequently, they concluded that the report presented to the President was the Commission’s final report.
The pair questioned the purpose of responding to adverse findings if the report had already been finalised. Furthermore, they argued that the Commission had breached its own procedures on procedural fairness. They cited Rule 29. According to this rule, adverse findings affecting a person’s interests should not be made without giving that person an opportunity to respond.
They also said the Commission failed to provide them with the relevant portions of the draft report concerning them, as required by Rule 31(2)(b). Instead, they said the notices only identified chapters where evidence could be found. The notices invited them to request additional details.
“In the result, the President has the information supporting your adverse findings against us. We do not,” the response stated.
The two men said they had therefore been deprived of what they described as a meaningful opportunity to respond to the adverse findings. They said this amounted to a failure to observe principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Ramkalawan and Georges also referred to their appearances before the Commission. They said they answered questions fully and truthfully. Furthermore, they stated that the manner in which they were questioned reinforced their view. They expressed their belief that the process did not seek to establish the truth of their connections with the Assomption matter.
The response concluded by stating that they would seek redress outside the process rather than reply to the Commission’s notices. In addition, they wrote that they declined the invitation to make representations on the adverse findings. They also intended to make their responses public once they had seen the Commission’s report.