YET again, the Integrity Commission is standing by its decision to bring to an end the probe, into the Prime Minister's purchase of a townhouse in Tobago.

The commission has said, Dr Rowley omitted to disclose the purchase contrary to the Integrity in Public Life Act.

But it also added that Dr Rowley's omission was not deliberate.

It maintained its position that it could not find reasonable grounds to draw the inference that Dr Rowley made a false statement of the estimated value of the townhouse in his Form A declaration of income, assets and liabilities.

However, the commission said it has asked Dr Rowley to amend his declaration to reflect the true state of his affairs.

On Thursday, the commission maintained it conducted a 'meaningful investigation' of the complaint first raised in December 2021 by UNC MP Saddam Hosein over the purchase of the townhouse at Inez Gate at Shirvan, Tobago.

It also said enquiries were made of relevant witnesses. The commission was responding to a second call by UNC activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj to reopen its investigation into the Prime Minister's declaration of the purchase of the Tobago townhouse to consider the valuation of the townhouse.

On Thursday, the commission wrote to Maharaj's attorney Vishaal Siewsaran in response to the request to reopen its investigation, interview relevant people, obtain documentary evidence and make a fresh decision.

In the second complaint, on August 17, Siewsaran took issue with the value Dr Rowley ascribed to the townhouse in his declaration of income and assets under the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA).

The attorney argued that the commission's original 18-month investigation was done in a 'piecemeal manner,' and was 'skewed, biased, and incomplete.'

Maharaj first challenged the commission's decision to terminate its investigation on August 3.

In the request to re-open the investigation, Siewsaran said when Dr Rowley and his wife signed the deed for the purchase price of $1.2 million, they would have been expected to pay stamp duty on that figure, and the attorney who acted for them would have had to present a valuation report to pay the stamp duty.

'It is clear that the BIR became suspicious of this transaction and hence commissioned an independent valuation from the Valuations Division,' which, he said, valued the townhouse at $1.68 million, not $1.2 million.

The commission said it found 'no evidence of any alteration from a lower stamp value to a higher stamp value to raise an inference that there was a change in the circumstances which was so significant that Dr Rowley had to be made aware of same.

'Additionally, the commission reiterates that it had no evidence suggesting that Dr Rowley knew of the valuation of the said townhouse unit for stamp duty purposes.'

'The commission is compelled to point out that what ought to have been done by the attorney responsible for the transaction and what was actually done are two distinct matters.

'In this regard, the commission is required to make its decision based