Gordon Robinson | Jacden says no resale

My column, headlined Inexcusable, published last Sunday, resulted in more than normal feedback.

On Twitter, a regular with the handle “Rampanpiza” (@dentona22), whose tweets have, historically, been almost entirely supportive of PNP, posted the following comment:

“There is just one error in this article and it’s the fact that there are no reports of Jacden reselling the items to UHWI, otherwise the column is spot on.”

I accepted it as positive feedback but there was a nagging condition attached. So, because I don’t enjoy making mistakes, however insignificant to the overall opinion written, I immediately returned to the Auditor General’s (AudGen’s) Report.

In the Executive Summary:

“UHWI facilitated the import of office furniture and medical equipment valued at $40.6 million for [Jacden], as well as cups and dishes worth $1.41 million for Private Companies (sic) 3, resulting in revenue losses of $10.7 million. Subsequently, UHWI purchased the cups and dishes from Private Company 3 for a price of $6.9 million.”

Oops. UHWI’s repurchasing was from Private Company No 3 and not from Jacden. Maybe the typo “companies” caught me. So what was the actual “arrangement” between Jacden and UHWI that Dennis Gordon admitted to Observer? At page 41, the sorry details are clinically exposed:

“UHWI misused its tax exemption status to facilitate the importation of office furniture and medical equipment valued at approximately $40.6 million for [Jacden]. This led to [Jacden] benefiting from a tax relief of $10.1 million.”

So, it’s clear Jacden and UHWI “arranged” for Jacden to deprive Jamaica’s revenue and, by so doing, cost taxpayers over $10 million in the audited period. By that same “arrangement” Jacden received goods, including medical equipment, valued at over $40 million. So we begin with a profit, made off the backs of Jamaican taxpayers who Jacden’s principal, Dennis Gordon, represents in Parliament, of $10.1 million. AudGen continued:

“Our review highlighted discrepancies and conflicting information across multiple customs and shipping documents. The customs entry document, dated February 1, 2024 , listed UHWI Private Wing as the importer and the name of the former UHWI CEO noted as the responsible party for financial settlement, despite that the former CEO employment ended in November 2022. The conflicting information continues where the Customs Declaration (C84), dated February 1, 2024, identified UHWI as the importer . This document reflected the current CEO’s name and signature, declaring that all particulars are true and correct. Of note, the customs entry document bore the name of a custom broker that is not the contracted broker of UHWI.”

This is all a part of the “arrangement” Dennis Gordon says Jacden entered into with UHWI. As a result of that “arrangement” UHWI made conflicting representations to Customs for the benefit of Jacden. Jacden was the real importer of the furniture and equipment. Jacden took delivery of the imported goods. Jacden owned the medical equipment. Jacden used the medical equipment, by arrangement with UHWI, albeit not by way of resale, to earn a profit for Jacden. AudGen reported worse:

“UHWI did not provide copies of the purchase requisition or procurement documentation to verify the need for the items, the selection of the bidder and award of the contract.”

Obviously, UHWI didn’t even have a purchase agreement with the overseas supplier. There was no UHWI procurement of the medical equipment.

“Also, UHWI did not provide payment support nor inventory records for review. For example, from the items listed among the imports….we selected the 12 dialysis machines to determine whether the items were included in UHWI’s inventory records and were in existence. However, UHWI did not provide the 12 dialysis machines and the other imported items for inspection.”

So it appears the imported dialysis machines were NOT resold to UHWI. They were NEVER in UHWI’s possession. So why’d UHWI facilitate Jacden’s tax-free importation of these machines? There’s a clue in AudGen’s investigative reporting:

“Our review of UHWI’s inventory records revealed that the last recorded set of dialysis machines was in January 2020, consisting of 24 AK98 dialysis machines received as a donation.”

SIX years ago, UHWI received DONATED dialysis machines. When last did UHWI purchase dialysis machines? For how long has this sleight-of-hand importation of dialysis machines been ongoing?

“We further conducted an audit inspection of the Dialysis Unit at the UHWI on July 2, 2025, where we observed 26 dialysis machines, of which 15 (58%) were out of service for various reasons and only 11 were operational, none of which were from the set of 12 dialysis machines imported in 2024. Consequently, we found no evidence indicating that the imported goods and equipment were the property of the UHWI….”

So UHWI was in desperate need of the services offered by new dialysis machines. Its Dialysis Unit had only ELEVEN operational machines. NONE of them were the 12 new Dialysis machines imported by UHWI for Jacden. So, instead of using the public healthcare system that ought to be available at UHWI, patients in need of dialysis had to use Jacden’s machines and pay Jacden’s fees.

All this was facilitated by Jacden’s “arrangement”, as Dennis Gordon called it, with UHWI. So the machines weren’t resold to UHWI. Good for you Jacden. I take it back. Instead of making a one-time profit by resale Jacden made daily profit by use of machines purchased using UHWI’s tax-exempt status to service healthcare patients’ needs that should’ve been met at UHWI. So my original query regarding what Dennis called a “mistake” essentially remains. Was it a “mistake” when Jacden accepted delivery of those goods not for use in or by UHWI but for use by Jacden at a profit paid for by the same Jamaican taxpayers Dennis represents in Parliament?

Back to AudGen’s findings:

“The imported items were supported by a UHWI undated declaration letter reflecting the name and signature of the former CEO [that] certified that the goods entered hereon are imported solely for the UHWI and indicated that the “Import duty is exempted vide University Act 960.10 GCT is zero rated vide1st schedule part 3 group 8 of the GCT Act CUF and ENVL vide 194.01”. Additionally, the Bill of Lading designated the current CEO as the consignee and [Jacden] as the notifying party. Although the current CEO’s name and signature appeared on both the Bill of Lading and the C84 document, the CEO denied that the UHWI facilitated the import. The differing statements, …lack of supporting documentation and inconsistent representations…. signalled the need for further investigation, given the misrepresentations about the true ownership of the imported goods and the loss of tax revenue.”

Misrepresentation about the true ownership of the imported goods means UHWI told Customs the goods belonged to it when they belonged to Jacden.

There was more feedback on Twitter from one Canute Thompson who complained that I hadn’t named the other three companies’ principals. “Why did you not name the other companies, as well, and assess their conduct evenly?” So, in his opinion, not naming the other private companies’ principals was what was uneven about my opinion? This seems to me to be more like a perfect application of the ‘Misery-Loves-Company” principle.

Well, Canute, why don’t you do it? I’m fairly sure that only one company’s principal is also a public official with public parliamentary duties and who has challenged the public’s view of his and his company’s conduct. But don’t let me stop you from exposing private conduct of private companies owned by private individuals if that’s what you consider “even” in the public interest.

Finally, Dennis Gordon sent a representative to e-mail me to assert that “at no time did Jacden accept delivery of goods for resale to UWI at a profit” and ask if I would make that correction. I told the third party that Dennis Gordon should send me details of the arrangement he said Jacden made with UHWI that didn’t include resale. For me it’s not enough to say there was no resale – a simple proposition I’ve no problem accepting. If, as Rampanpiza posted, the rest of the article is “spot on” then the only concern would be exactly how did Jacden’s “arrangement” with UHWI result in AudGen finding alleged breaches of the Customs Act and public trust for Jacden’s benefit.

Because, to paraphrase Billy Shakespeare, a rose’s fertilizer, by any other name, would smell as stink.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com