BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - SINCE the disclosure of former Government Minister Ian ‘Patches’ Liburd’s win over an ex parte injunction filed against him by Attorney-General Garth Wilkin, the latter has been silent on the ‘Nannygate’ saga.
According to media reports, AG Wilkin is said to have breached Section 47(1) of the Social Security Act, when he reportedly deducted months of Social Security benefit payments from his nanny and failed to pass it over to the Social Security Administration in a timely manner.
Reports indicated that the issue might have started as early as 2020 and ran into 2022 of which SKNVibes News has not yet independently verified.
Liburd had sought to draw attention to the matter on his talk show programme - Straight Talk - but was barred from doing so after the AG had filed the injunction.
Liburd then sought to challenge the matter in court and was successful.
That matter has since raised a number of concerns, including that the AG could be criminally liable for failing to make the payment in a timely manner under the Social Security Regulations.
Since the issue came to light just over a week ago, the Government and the AG came in for heavy criticism, especially since AG Wilkin tabled several Anti-Corruption Legislations for their second readings.
The People’s Action Movement (PAM) is one such body heavily criticising the Government Minister, as those pieces of legislation were described as the “Good Governance Legislation”, including the Anti-Corruption Legislation.
“We must assess our Government and today’s sitting of the National Assembly in light of the recent High Court decision in the matter between Mr. Garth Wilkin our Attorney General and Mr. Ian ‘Patches’ Liburd” the statement read in part.
“Mr. Liburd successfully argued to discharge an injunction against him, preventing him from speaking about the fact that Mr. Wilkin has continuously made late payments to Social Security contrary to the Social Security Act in respect of his family’s nanny. The Court at paragraph 37 of the decision states that Mr. Wilkin’s actions constitutes a criminal offence whether or not the law is strictly enforced.
“In light of this High Court decision we must ask the question, how can the Hon. Attorney General in good conscience move Integrity in Public Life legislation before our National Assembly having had his own moral authority to do so shattered? Whether or not the law is strictly enforced, we must demand compliance from our public servants who lead this country, in particular the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs. Unfortunately, the Hon. Attorney General has been ‘named and shamed’,” the statement added.
According to court documents, the statement from Liburd is no unarguably defamatory of Mr. Wilkin. It acknowledged that Social Security contributions were paid late by Wilkin, constituting breaches liable to prosecution, among other findings.
In recent months, a number of business owners were hauled before the courts for failing to pay Social Security after making deduction from the salaries of their employees.
It is public knowledge that shortly after being appointed Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs, Wilkin had sought to target a number of individuals and companies.
He had come in for both praise and criticism for the way in which he had been naming and shaming companies that were reportedly aligned with the former administration and the way they received contracts, many of which had indeed breached the Tender and Procurement Legislation.
