No red flags for CMU’s chief finance officials’ over compliance to institution’s laws

A senior official in the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service yesterday conceded that he had no evidence that the chief financial officers at the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) failed to comply with the relevant financial laws governing the institution.

The admission came during proceedings in the multimillion-dollar fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid, his wife Sharen Reid, daughter Sharelle Reid, former CMU President Fritz Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party councillor Kim Brown in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

The accused are facing allegations that they conspired to defraud the Ministry of Education and CMU of more than $25 million.

Under cross-examination by defence attorney Hugh Wildman, the principal director of the Accounting and Financial Policy Branch in the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, agreed that both the treasurer and bursar were key positions within the university’s financial management structure.

“I agree that the [Caribbean Maritime University] Act puts in place two specific important positions,” the witness said, adding that those officers, along with other university officials, were expected to comply with the Financial Administration and Audit Act and the policies of the Ministry of Finance.

“You have no evidence that they did not comply with those laws?” Wildman asked.

“No sir,” the witness replied.

Earlier in his testimony, the witness had accepted that the treasurer would play “a major role” in ensuring proper financial management and compliance within the institution.

Wildman pressed the witness extensively on the statutory roles of the treasurer and bursar under the Caribbean Maritime University Act, suggesting that the university had established mechanisms for financial oversight and accountability.

Reading from the legislation, Wildman pointed to provisions stating that the council “shall appoint a treasurer” and that the treasurer would perform functions relating to finance and investment while reporting to the council on the university’s financial affairs.

He also referenced provisions establishing the office of bursar, which he described as the institution’s “chief accounting officer”.

The witness later acknowledged that his testimony was limited to general policy issues, not to the specific facts of the case against Pinnock, of which he said he was unaware.

However, he agreed that part of his role at the Ministry of Finance involved examining how government departments' affairs were managed whenever allegations of financial breaches, malpractice, or weaknesses were brought to the ministry’s attention.

But when asked whether he had been required to carry out such an examination in relation to CMU, the witness said no.

The finance ministry official also agreed that CMU was established by an Act of Parliament and operated under its own management structure, including a governing council responsible for managing the affairs of the university and formulating policies, once those policies remained in keeping with the Financial Administration and Audit Act and other applicable laws.

During further questioning about the university’s governance structure, the witness accepted that the council could implement programmes aimed at assisting at-risk youth, provided there was no breach of the relevant financial regulations.

Wildman, during cross-examination, sought to portray Pinnock as a leader who made personal sacrifices for the betterment of the university.

“Do you know that Professor Pinnock refused to take any pay increase?” Wildman asked.

“I don’t know, sir,” the witness replied.

The witness was also asked whether he was aware that Pinnock had been commended and awarded by both political administrations for his implementation of policies, but said he did not know.

Similarly, he indicated that he was unaware that Pinnock had been driving the same motor vehicle for 10 years.

When questioned by the judge about the relevance of the question regarding the car, Wildman argued that if a public officer was abusing his or her benefits, it would raise a “red flag” that could attract the attention of the relevant officials within the Ministry of Finance.

The trial continues before Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell on July 1.