And in the House Meeting, the PM also revealed that several parcels of land were sold by the former Minister of Natural Resources, Hugo Patt, to a middle man, who then sold it to Portico days before the 2020 general election. Briceno insinuated that Patt also had some part in the Portico come up.
And today, Peyrefitte said that Patt would have to answer for himself, but that the names on the land titles look - to him - like "true blue" personalities.
He added that if GOB says the definitive agreement is so corrupt, why is it that they're still trying to - in his words - "pretty it up?"
Mike Peyrefitte, UDP Senator
"The former minister of natural resources would have to explain that. That is something that he would have to go through. I notice that a lot of PUPs had gotten the land. I see name like Andrew Bennett that clearly make no apologies for their political positions, which they shouldn't, but those people will have to explain how they got that land and for what purpose and the former minister he himself will have to explain how he got it. Maybe he had a good reason for giving them. I don't know, we have to explore that. But, if the current government believes that those lands should not have been given out to those people, they are the current government, they can easily compulsorily acquire it back and pay back those peoples the monies that they paid for it. So it's not a difficult thing we're in. You're the government now and while they keep criticising that document and try to make it a UDP document and situation, they are nothing to correct the situation."
"The minister of education described it as an ugly UDP baby. Well, the PUP tried to adopt that baby, dressed it up, put lipstick on it and all kinds of things, but they get catch and when they got catch, then they try to passed it off like, oh, this was a sham from the beginning. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, if it was a sham from the beginning, why did you give ECP compliance 6 months after you came in government."
"It was a sham from the beginning, why didn't you come out in your first week in government and waive it to the people and say, this is something we find the UDP did and tear it up then. Why didn't he do it then? Why did he then, if it's a sham situation, take the matter to cabinet, requested for cabinet to approve it and provided legislation to come to the house."
"So, what happened before, no let us talk about that, that done gone and we done express how we feel about that. The explanation is why is it that a situation that you claimed is so untoward you seem to want to embrace with two hands. That is the question for the prime minister."
