IS PIERRE’S OPPOSITION TO CABOT INVESTMENT BASED ON CONVENIENT CONJECTURE?

The July 5 NIC statement on its investment in Cabot (St Lucia) Inc, released to “reassure all our stakeholders, in particular, our contributors, that the NIC at all times acts within the parameters of its Investment Policy and Guidelines which has been in effect since 2002,” was not nearly enough for House opposition leader Philip J Pierre.

On Tuesday he claimed somewhat hyperbolically: “The NIC exists solely for the purpose of financing the pipe-dreams of the prime minister and to help him to win the next general elections.” He added: “Why would anyone want to trust the NIC, when it operates in the dark?”

But the Corporation had clearly stated: “In respect of the particular investment in question, discussions and negotiations exceeded one year and the board gave its final approval only after all its concerns were addressed, the primary one being the security of the investment to be made. This process is followed for each and every investment opportunity without fail.” 

As for Pierre’s assertion that the NIC had been made into an election mechanism to benefit Allen Chastanet, I asked the SLP leader whether he meant to say the Corporation was untrustworthy.  His response: “We’re not dealing with trust, you know. This is not a courtship. It’s not trust. It’s hard figures. Nobody is speaking about anybody trusting anybody. We’re saying, if you are so secure, show the figures. Come right away and say how much you invested.”  

The seemingly forgetful SLP leader was backed by the former Labour MP for Gros Islet, Emma Hippolyte. Earlier she had served as NIC Director. While not directly questioning the qualifications of the current NIC directors, she seemed to accuse them of cowardice: “It is the spine they do not have to stand up and to analyse a project and to tell; whether it’s the prime minister who sends the person, to say this does not fit our Investment Policy.” 

How exactly Hippolyte decided the investment does not fit the NIC’s Investment Policy is unclear. She openly acknowledged her lack of information, even as she seemed irresponsibly to berate lead NIC personnel: “A private investor coming into Saint Lucia, what appears to be . . . and we do not have the information so I’m going to say, appears to be a direct loan of millions of dollars . . . a new avenue for the NIC.”

The NIC, for its part, in citing its current Investment Policy and Guidelines, insists the Cabot investment is not in contravention of guidelines established since 2002 under a Labour government that included the now opposition leader.  

“The NIC should not participate in the equity of a start-up company,” notes the NIC. “However, the NIC can participate via fixed income instruments—loans, bonds—which should be appropriately secured and which would ordinarily have first claim on the company’s assets. The NIC can contribute to start-up equity of small hotels/concerns by contributing to a Venture Capital Fund or a Development Fund, an amount not exceeding 1.5% of the total portfolio at cost which would circumscribe the NIC’s exposure to that asset class.”

On Timothy Poleon’s Newsspin programme this week, the prime minister’s attache Norbert Williams added: “The NIC has clearly defined how its monies can be invested, what percentage of the monies go to government lending, to fixed deposits, to regional investments and to extra-regional investments. 

“The monthly deductions from members’ pay cheques can never fulfill the expectations and the payouts for pensions into the future.” Williams said Cabot (St Lucia) Inc “invested a significant amount in this property when it purchased 375 acres from the receivers”.

As the earlier quoted NIC press release noted, the Corporation “can contribute to start-up equity of small hotels/concerns by contributing to a Venture Capital Fund or a Development Fund, an amount not exceeding 1.5% of the total portfolio.” As Pierre himself pointed out on Tuesday: “The press release further states that the NIC obtained security ‘which is three and a half times NIC’s investment’.” 

Still a dissatisfied doubting Pierre went on: “If Cabot has access to such sound security, why hasn’t Cabot been able to raise the finance it requires for the project from its own base in Canada where it is reputedly so successful?” 

Meanwhile some are dismissing the opposition leader’s questions as “pointless” and “just more proof that they will do their utmost to discourage foreign inevestment in Saint Lucia while they remain in opposition”. A leading supporter of the government said: “None of this is new. Remember when Kenny Anthony publicly stated his intention to advise foreign contacts not to invest in Saint Lucia? He was, at the time, leader of the opposition.”