By CHARLEEN THOMAS

PRINCIPAL of Northern Construction Limited (NCL), Ishwar Galbaransingh, yesterday made his first appearance at the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco airport project. However former Works and Transport Minister Sadiq Baksh failed to show up, although the Comm-ission allowed him time to do so. It was the last summons to Baksh urging him to attend the inquiry.

Both were summoned to appear yesterday before the Commission to cross examine witnesses who have implicated them of wrongdoing on the project.

When the inquiry began at 9.35 am, Baksh’s name was called twice, but he was not present. It was noted by lead attorney for the Commission Theodore Guerra, SC that a summons was served to Baksh in care of his daughter Dawn at his Palmiste, San Fernando home on February 8 by PC Terrence Carrington.

Galbaransingh’s name was then called. He together with his attorney Devesh Maharaj stood up and Maharaj informed the Comm-ission that he was instructing attorney for Reginald Armour in the matter. He acknowledged receipt of the summons, letter and transcripts served on Amrith Maharaj, Finan-cial Director of NCL for Galbaransingh. That summons was served last week Tuesday at NCL’s Wrightson Road, Port-of-Spain office by PC Dave James.

Maharaj announced he was not ready to proceed, because Armour was engaged in the Port-of-Spain High Court in a part-heard matter and he had not gone through all the transcripts.

He requested the matter be adjourned to next Friday when they will be able to proceed.

Guerra said it was only fair that such a request be granted. All witnesses, over a dozen, were advised to return next week.

At 9.45 am Chairman Clinton Bernard took a break to allow Baksh time to appear.

However on the resumption an hour later, Baksh’s name was again called and he was absent. Bernard, after announcing that the record should show a summons was issued to Baksh and he did not appear, proceeded to elicit evidence from Wayne Mohammed, an officer of the court in charge of keeping the records, about the numerous times Baksh was written too to attend the inquiry and failed to attend.

Bernard said it was important to have such evidence on record. It took half an hour before the witnesses were told they were free to go, because Baksh was not there.

Baksh two weeks ago, when asked if he would appear was evasive, saying the Commission had to tell him why he was a “subject”.

Sadiq Baksh writes Commission

FORMER Works and Transport Minister Sadiq Baksh is maintaining that there is nothing which identifies him as “an individual or that leads directly and inescapably” to him as being a “subject” of the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco airport project.

And he is continuing his demand that he be given an explanation as to why he is a “subject”.

Baksh’s stance was reiterated in a letter sent to the Commission dated yesterday, the same day he failed to show up as summoned before the Commission.

The letter was copied to President Arthur NR Robinson.

Baksh in his two page letter to Chairman Clinton Bernard, which acknowledged receipt of the summons dated February 6, said he was at a total loss as to why the Commission arrived at the conclusion that he was a “subject” based on the Commission’s terms of reference.

He pointed out that he had requested information as to why he was a subject from the Commission and had never received a reply.

He said it was incumbent upon the Commission to give his request due consideration and to take cognisance of the serious concerns raised by the Law Association.

The Opposition Senator said it was with great concern that he observed the deterioration of due process in the conduct of the inquiry, and that he has found no credible basis to alter his position which was made abundantly clear at the outset.

Baksh hastened to add that his position has been strongly reinforced by the Law Association in its letter to Prime Minister Patrick Manning dated January 28, 2003, which called for the inquiry to be stopped.

Baksh also said that he had observed the “fundamental breach of putting words into witnesses” mouths and even complimenting and indicating to witnesses that they will be complimented before giving their evidence.”