Any reply or subsequent reference to this

communication should be addressed to the OFFICE OF THE CONTRACTOR-

Contractor-General and the following
reference quoted:- GENERAL
PIOJ Building
No. : 16 Oxford Road
TELEPHONE No.:876-929-8560/6466 P.O. BOX 540
FAX No. : 876-929-2476
E-mail: communications@ocg.gov.jm KIN
GSTON 5

JAMAICA, W.I

MEDIA RELEASE

OCG ISSUES PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO RULINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF

PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS IN THE OCG’s JUTC INVESTIGATION

Kingston; September 27, 2010 – The Office of the Contractor General (OCG) was advised, this afternoon,
of the Rulings of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the matter of the OCG’s Report of
Investigation which was conducted into certain contracts which were awarded by the Jamaica Urban Transit
Company Limited (JUTC).

Ruling Regarding Simber Productions Ltd.– DPP’s Ruling is Based upon a Major Misstatement of
Fact
Opon a preliminary review of the DPP’s Rulings, the OCG has discovered that at least one of the DPP’s
principal Rulings, with respect to the culpability of Ms. Susan Simes, is based upon a material premise
which is factually flawed.

The OCG, in its Report, had found that Mr. Douglas Chambers was, at all material times, throughout his
life, the Majority Shareholder of Simber Productions Limited. The OCG’s Report goes on to state that “An
amended Annual Return of Simber Productions Limited was executed by Ms. Susan Simes on July 16, 2008,
less than three weeks after the June 27, 2008 death of Mr. Douglas Chambers. The Amended Annual Return
was stamped ‘received’ by the ORC (Office of the Registrar of Companies) on July 17, 2008”. The Return
resulted in Ms. Simes becoming the Majority Shareholder of Simber Productions Limited, and the deceased
Mr. Douglas Chambers becoming the Minority Shareholder.

However, while the DPP has agreed with the OCG’s Findings that Ms. Simes signed the Annual Return on
the “16th day of July, 2008”, and that the Return was “stamped ‘received’ by the ORC on July 17, 2008”,
she has nonetheless categorically stated that the signing of the document on July 16, 2008 occurred “three

1
weeks before the death of Mr. Douglas Chambers” – a Ruling which would erroneously place Mr.
Chambers death during the 1st week of August 2008. However, it is an incontrovertible fact that Mr.
Chambers was murdered on June 27, 2008 and thus, it is also an incontrovertible fact that Ms. Simes would
have altered the records of the company after Mr. Chambers was murdered and not before as the Learned
DPP has mistakenly stated.

Ruling Regarding JUTC Board of Directors – DPP Has Exceeded Her Lawful Jurisdiction
The DPP has exceeded her lawful jurisdiction by issuing a Ruling with regard to the civil culpability of two
(2) members of the then JUTC Board of Directors, Mr. Dennis Chung and Mr. Rae Barrett. Neither of these
men was referred by the OCG, to the DPP, for any criminal conduct. The matters in respect of which they
were referred had to do with clear breaches of their fiduciary and statutory duties, as JUTC Board Directors,
in violation of trite common law principles and the expressed provisions of the Public Bodies Management
and Accountability Act. Indeed, the matters in question were properly and formally referred by the OCG to
the Attorney General for her consideration. They were not referred to the DPP.

Ruling Regarding Bindley Sangster – Issue of Intent to be Properly Determined by a Court of Law
As regards the Referral which was made by the OCG regarding Mr. Bindley Sangster, the evidence that he
signed a false statutory declaration in contravention of Section 29 (a) of the Contractor General Act is
incontrovertible. The OCG would respectfully contend that the determination of the issue as to whether Mr.
Sangster’s act was accompanied by the requisite criminal intent or mens rea is a matter which should be
properly determined by a Court of Law.

DPP’s Conclusions – DPP has Misguided Herself on the Provisions of the Contractor General Act
In her Conclusion, the Learned DPP has misguided herself on the clear provisions of the Contractor General
Act. The Learned DPP has alluded to the rules of natural justice and has stated that “… the tenet which says
that one is innocent until proven guilty … must be respected and observed as it is one of the great pillars of
the administration of criminal justice”. She goes on to state that “A citizen, therefore, is entitled to his good
name, until or unless a tribunal of fact, whether judge of jury, after hearing evidence on oath, … has found
otherwise.”

The OCG believes that the Learned DPP has failed to properly acquaint herself with the provisions of the
Contractor General Act. The following provisions of the referenced Act are instructive:

2
(1) Section 18 (2) of the Act which prescribes the power of a Contractor General “to summon before
him and examine on oath any person who has made representations to him or any officer, member or
employee of a public body or any other person who, in the opinion of the Contractor General, is able to
furnish information relating to the investigation – and such examination shall be deemed to be a judicial
proceeding within the meaning of Section 4 of the Perjury Act”.

In lieu of examining a witness under Oath, a Contractor General is empowered by Sections 2 (1) and
7 of the Voluntary Declarations Act to require a witness to swear to the truthfulness of his testimony
before a Justice of the Peace. By operation of law, Section 8 of the Perjury Act brings all such
testimonies within the purview of the Perjury Act. All of the respondents in this matter, inclusive of
Mr. Bindley Sangster, Mr. Rae Barrett and Mr. Dennis Chung, were required by the OCG to
produce sworn testimonies pursuant to the foregoing provisions of the law.

(2) Section 18 (3) of the Act which provides that “For the purposes of an investigation under this
Act, a Contractor General shall have the same powers as a Judge of the Supreme Court in respect of the
attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents”.

Finally, the DPP has failed to properly advise herself that a Contractor General is a quasi-judicial authority
which is empowered by law to make a quasi-judicial finding of fact that there is evidence that a person has
committed a criminal offence. In this regard, Section 21 of the Contractor General Act provides expressly
as follows:

“If a Contractor-General finds, during the course of his Investigations or on the conclusion thereof that
there is evidence of a breach of duty or misconduct or criminal offence on the part of an officer or member
of a public body, he shall refer the matter to the person or persons competent to take such disciplinary or
other proceeding as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a
special report before Parliament.”

-END-
Contact: The Communications Department, Office of the Contractor General of Jamaica
C/o Craig Beresford, Senior Director of Monitoring Operations, Corporate Communications and Special Projects
E-mail: communications@ocg.gov.jm. Tel: 876-929-8560; Direct: 876-926-0034; Mobile: 876-564-1806