Former Acting Comptroller of Customs, Peter Chiquot, is facing scrutiny over inconsistencies in his recent social media broadcast regarding the long-running customs case involving Deputy Prime Minister Dr Ernest Hilaire.
Chiquot, now a UWP candidate for the Castries East seat, aired grievances last week following a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling dismissing Opposition Leader Allen Chastanet’s claim against the Office of the Comptroller of Customs to reinstate the legal matter against Hilaire.
In his broadcast, Chiquot painted Hilaire as a law-breaking figure who “fail[ed] to submit these documents even after being written to in collaboration with the DPP’s office.”
He stressed that “the laws are specific on the Section 102 of the Customs Act, where it mandates all importers of all goods are obligated to provide documentation and information to the control of customs upon request.” Chiquot framed this as a straightforward legal obligation that Hilaire allegedly defied.
However, the CCJ’s factual findings tell a different story. Justice Eboe-Osuji noted that the “commercial invoice” demanded from Hilaire was always in the possession of the Customs Department, and its presence “would be fatal to the case for the prosecution.” The court records show that Chiquot’s repeated claims of non-compliance were therefore factually inaccurate and misleading. In fact several letters written by Hilaire’s lawyers stated over and over that Customs already had the invoice and reproduced it once again to the Acting Comptroller, who continued to ignore the invoice that two previous Acting Comptrollers indicated that they had seen and were satisfied with and that Hilaire had no further obligation to Customs.
Chiquot also alleged that after the 2021 election, the new government “literally free[d] Ernest Hilaire of these matters… They went into mediation, unknown to me, and the incoming Comptroller decided that he was going to withdraw the matter.” He framed the withdrawal as an act of political interference.
The CCJ judgment, however, shows that the withdrawal was procedural and mediated, with the incoming Comptroller, Sherman Emmanuel, acting after consulting his team. Further the court emphasized that there was no evidence that Attorney General Leslie Mondesir, who previously represented Hilaire as a private lawyer, influenced the withdrawal.
Justice Eboe-Osuji explained: “Probative evidence of Attorney General Mondesir’s own positive input must be adduced… The best evidence… goes no further than Mr Chiquot’s allegation.”
Chiquot’s broadcast also omitted his own role and prior acknowledgment of the impact of his actions. In an Order of the High Court of Justice of Saint Lucia on the 15th of June 2022 Chiquot gave an unconditional apology to Hilaire and the Court as follows.
“In my position as Acting Comptroller of Customs I took certain actions which I felt I was obligated to do as a matter of law. I acted without any personal spite or ill will towards anyone. However, to the extent that my actions caused any hurt or embarrassment to Dr Ernest Hilaire, I apologise to him and state that this had never been my intention.”
The tone of that apology sharply contrasts with Chiquot’s recent political rhetoric, in which he accused Hilaire of corruption, warned of divine retribution, and repeatedly stated that Hilaire’s “days are numbered.”
Chiquot also emphasized procedural complications in the courts, claiming the matter “went to court, seven occasions” and that Hilaire was defended by “11 lawyers.”
While technically accurate, the CCJ judgment notes that some of these appearances involved routine adjournments and mediation, with internal opposition from Chiquot’s deputy, Sharman Emmanuel, who believed the Customs Department’s responsibility was strictly revenue collection.
In framing the withdrawal as politically motivated, Chiquot asserted:
“Here you are, a gentleman who has violated the law of the state now becomes Minister of Government. The matter is now being settled in his interest because now he forms the government.”
But violation of what Law? The CCJ judgment clearly contradicts Chiquot’s narrative, noting that the withdrawal was lawful, mediated, and untainted by political favoritism, and that Chiquot’s allegations of undue influence were unsupported by evidence. This appears to be based on the fact that the Court had already acknowledged that Customs was already in possession of the invoice Chiquot was demanding under section 102. How can one violate a law by having already produced the very invoice being demanded?
The inconsistencies noted by the Court, between Chiquot’s past and present statements raise questions about the accuracy and intent of his narrative to the Saint Lucian public.
