CASTRIES, St Lucia — New documents obtained by Unitedpac St Lucia News have intensified the Richard Frederick corruption allegations, raising questions about a government contract, proposed cemetery works and construction allegedly connected to the private residence of former Housing Permanent Secretary Dr. Cadelia Ambrose.
The latest allegations centre on a contract reportedly connected to cemetery expansion works and valued below EC$100,000. Sources claim the contractor named in the documents had previously worked on Dr. Cadelia Ambrose’s private property on the Morne but had no meaningful involvement in the stated cemetery project.
Unitedpac St Lucia News has not independently established that public funds were diverted to the property. The allegations have not been proven in court or confirmed through a publicly released audit or criminal investigation.
A Contract Under Scrutiny
At the centre of the allegations is a government contract valued at less than EC$100,000. Sources have questioned whether the amount was deliberately kept below that figure to limit the level of procurement review or approval required.
Unitedpac St Lucia News has not independently confirmed that the contract was structured to bypass established procurement controls. However, its value, stated purpose and connection to the named contractor raise questions that require a clear response from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The questions now being asked are damning:
- Was the contract intended solely for the cemetery works identified in the documents?
- Why was the contract valued below EC$100,000, and what procurement process was followed before it was approved?
Richard Frederick and Dr. Cadelia Ambrose have not publicly answered the questions raised by the documents. A full response, supported by the contract, scope of works, payment records and evidence that the stated project was completed, could help establish what occurred.
Who is Mr. Sylvester?
Another key figure in the allegations is a contractor identified as Mr. Sylvester, whose name appears in the documents. Sources claim Sylvester was listed in connection with cemetery expansion works but had never visited or performed work at the cemetery site.
Those claims have not been independently verified. However, they raise questions about how the contractor was selected, what work he was expected to complete and whether the services identified in the contract were carried out.
Sources further allege that Mr. Sylvester was surprised when he attended the Government Treasury to collect a substantial payment because he did not fully understand the project for which the money had been approved.
We have not independently confirmed the payment amount, the circumstances under which the cheque was collected or who ultimately benefited from the proceeds.
A Whistleblower Speaks Out
The source’s account could become important in determining whether the transaction represented legitimate public expenditure. According to information supplied to Unitedpac St Lucia News, Mr. Sylvester questioned the circumstances surrounding the payment and the use of his name in connection with the cemetery project.
The source also alleged that the money may have been redirected toward construction at Dr. Cadelia Ambrose’s private property. That claim remains unproven and should be examined against Treasury records, invoices, inspection reports and the physical work completed at the stated project site.
Key questions are now being directed at Dr. Cadelia Ambrose:
The documents and source allegations raise several questions for Dr. Ambrose:
- Did Mr. Sylvester perform private construction work at Dr. Ambrose’s residence?
- Did any money, materials, labour or equipment connected to the government contract benefit the private property?
- Why was the contractor allegedly unaware of the purpose attached to the payment issued in his name?
These allegations place both Dr. Cadelia Ambrose and Richard Frederick under renewed scrutiny. Ambrose should state whether she received or benefited from any portion of the contracted funds, while Frederick should explain what oversight was exercised over the contract by the ministry under his leadership.
Internal Strife at the Ministry
Sources also allege that concerns about activities within the Ministry of Housing were raised internally and communicated to Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre.
One claim identifies a deputy permanent secretary as having repeatedly reported concerns about the handling of contracts and expenditure within the department. Those alleged communications have not been independently verified.
- Was the Office of the Prime Minister informed about concerns surrounding the contract?
- Did any senior official request an audit or investigation after receiving the allegations?
- What action, if any, was taken to protect public funds?
The existence of internal concerns would not, on its own, prove wrongdoing. However, any complaints raised by public officers should be documented and independently examined rather than handled solely within the ministry.
Public Demands Accountability
The documents have renewed questions about accountability, procurement controls and the protection of taxpayers’ money within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The allegations warrant an independent examination of the contract, including who requested the work, who prepared and approved the documents, who certified completion and who received the resulting payment.
The Next Move
The latest documents add to questions first raised in an earlier Unitedpac St Lucia News investigation into the Richard Frederick corruption scandal, which examined allegations involving Housing Ministry contracts, cemetery works and the use of public funds.
he next move rests with the Government of St Lucia. Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre, Richard Frederick and Dr. Cadelia Ambrose should address the allegations directly and release the relevant records needed to establish whether the contract represented legitimate public expenditure.
