WITH reference to your report of last Friday’s press conference held by Mr Roger Hernandez of the CFATF and carried on Page 3 of Tuesday’s (Chronicle) newspaper under the headline, ‘APNU amendments are risky’ says CFATF adviser:

I attended Mr Hernandez briefing of the Select Committee held at 5pm the very afternoon, and wish you to note the following:
Mr Hernandez reported that his task was limited to reporting on the 2012 compliance exercise and the draft Bill. He added that CFATF had not examined APNU’s or any other proposals. He therefore could not offer a view on any other proposals at that point in time.
At no point during the ensuing discussion did Mr Hernandez share with the meeting his views on the APNU’s proposals, which could not have been properly before him.
He did observe that any other proposals relating to the Bill (whether from the APNU or Government or anyone else) including amendments to the original Act would be subject to ex-post review by the body. He stressed that, obviously, while a specific change proposed may or may not be compliant, that change could affect another element of the Bill, and in the process make it non-compliant.
He urged that this be borne in mind. It is an obvious and prudent caution applicable to almost every change in legislation, and it is the job of the Chief Parliamentary Council to ensure that this is checked.
You article claims that “pressed for a comment on the three proposed amendments by… APNU, he acknowledged that the amendments are risky ones.”
I am surprised that he used such words, specifically in relation to APNU’s amendments on which he said he could not pronounce; especially since he had been at pains to explain that the CFATF could not properly pronounce on matters before they had been finalised, or pertaining to the rights of an Assembly. It would have, therefore, been most unprofessional for him to have made the statements you assert.
However, in view of the repetition of the assertion in your paper that he did not express concern about the riskiness of any proposals other than the guidelines CFATF had provided, but specifically of APNU proposals, I write to request that you provide a transcript of the portion of his statement to that effect.
I should like you to know that in the event that you are able to provide the same and it bears out your claim, I shall be writing to CFATF to provide the written analysis of the report, and demand an explanation of why the official would have omitted to mention it to the meeting of the Select Committee and a separate meeting of the APNU and AFC, and chosen instead to reserve the airing of such a politically sensitive opinion to the press.
At none of the meetings did he put a question to us about the specifics of the APNU proposal.

CARL B. GREENIDGE

EDITOR’S NOTE: This newspaper stands by our report. We have on record Mr Hernandez saying, at the press conference, that “the concern that we have is that the amendments being put forward may make those areas that were formally compliant, non-compliant. There is a risk with that.” This quote was also carried, verbatim, by other media outlets.