Imbert Questions East Port-of-Spain Company’s Operation Without a Board

The Full Story

Housing Minister David Lee confirmed during Parliament’s 23 October Standing Finance Committee review that the State-owned East Port-of-Spain Development Company had no appointed board, according to the Guardian’s report published the next day. The newspaper says the vacancy dates from May 2025. Opposition MP Colm Imbert argued that operating without directors breached the Companies Act and asked who was approving accounts and financial statements. Lee said he was not a lawyer and would investigate before answering the legal question. The minister’s confirmation of the vacancy is distinct from Imbert’s legal allegation; the report does not establish a court or regulator finding of a breach.

Sources: Trinidad Guardian, 24 Oct ↗

A separate October 2025 Standing Finance Committee transcript records a minister confirming that this company had no board at that time and saying one would be appointed shortly. The newer Guardian report says the vacancy persisted a year later. Opposition MP Stuart Young also asked how the company used its TT$14.4 million 2026 operational allocation while the board and, he said, some executive posts were vacant. Lee described the allocation as covering salaries, health insurance, leases, computers, maintenance and repairs. He said infrastructure projects drew on a different funding programme and rejected the suggestion that the board vacancy had stopped operations. The Housing Ministry describes the company as wholly State-owned and incorporated under the Companies Act. More significantly, the company’s own public statement printed in the official Gazette on 12 February 2026 said it was awaiting appointment of a board. That is a dated, first-party record supporting the reported gap; it does not reveal subsequent director filings.

Sources: Trinidad Guardian, 24 Oct ↗ · Parliament Standing Finance Committee, 24 Oct 2025 ↗

Young questioned whether almost all of the operational allocation had been spent. Lee said he would need to examine the company’s bank statements to establish any remaining balance. He also said arrangements were being made to appoint a board. Those statements do not provide audited accounts, a list of who authorised particular payments, or an appointment date. The company’s development mandate concerns East Port-of-Spain communities, so the governance gap matters for decisions on local services and projects as well as accounting. The next check is the formal director register, signed accounts and a dated ministerial response to Imbert’s legal question.

Sources: Trinidad Guardian, 24 Oct ↗ · Parliament Standing Finance Committee, 24 Oct 2025 ↗

The law gives a concrete test. Section 64(1) of the Companies Act requires at least two directors for a company, or at least three if it is a public company. If this company had no legally appointed directors during the period described, it fell below either minimum; even one director would fall below the two-director baseline. Section 77 explains how a vacancy can be filled: when no directors remain, a shareholder may call a meeting to fill it. Section 79 requires notice of a director change to the Registrar within 30 days. A missing or inactive board, however, does not by itself establish the exact number of legally appointed directors. The Guardian reports Lee confirmed no board; the company’s February Gazette statement says it was awaiting one. Neither source supplies the current director register or a ruling on any particular payment.

Sources: Trinidad Guardian, 24 Oct ↗ · Official Gazette, 12 Feb 2026, p. 386 ↗ · Companies Act, Chap. 81:01 ↗ · Companies Registry: Change of Directors ↗ · Housing Ministry: company profile ↗

Evidence and Context

On the reported facts, this appears to be a breach of the director-minimum requirement in section 64(1): every company must have at least two directors, and a public company at least three. The company’s own February Gazette statement said it awaited a board, and Lee confirmed in October that none was in place. “No board” is not a certified count of legally appointed directors, however. A current Companies Registry filing could confirm whether the director count was zero, one, or otherwise below the applicable minimum on the relevant dates. This is a sourced legal assessment of the reported position, not a regulator or court finding. Whether any individual payment or contract lacked authority is a separate question.

If the company had fewer than the applicable minimum of legally appointed directors, section 64(1) would not be satisfied and corrective appointments would be needed. Decisions requiring director approval might also need examination. The board vacancy and the statutory minimum should not be used to declare every payment void or improper without checking the authority for that payment.

What Happens Next

Obtain the current director filings and articles through the Companies Registry public-record search, which requires a Registry account and paid record access. Check any appointment or shareholder resolutions, audited accounts, and Lee’s promised response. Establish who approved major spending during the vacancy before assessing individual transactions.