Panton loaned his health minister $1.64M to buy canal-front home while premier

Wayne Panton made a $1.64 million loan to Health Minister Sabrina Turner to buy a house in Patrick’s Island last year, at a time when he was premier, according to public record documents reviewed by the Cayman Compass.

The loan was enough to cover the $1.4 million price tag of the four-bed property, $100,000 worth of furniture and fittings, and the stamp duty on the transaction.

The arrangement “potentially creates a severe conflict of interest,” the Progressives-led Opposition told the Compass on Tuesday afternoon, citing the “magnitude” of the loan “from a sitting Premier to a Government Minister”.

Panton, who now sits across the aisle from Turner in Parliament as an Opposition MP, defended the transaction, saying he was helping “a Caymanian friend and colleague”.

Turner did not respond to multiple Compass requests for comment.

Loan arrangement

Details of the purchase and the loan, registered on 17 April 2023, appear in public documents held with the Land Registry, copies of which were provided to the Compass this week.

A copy of the land transfer documents for the land at Block 24C, Parcel 35, lists Sabrina Turner and Eric Turner as the purchasers of the Patrick’s Island property, and Gurney Wayne Panton as holding a charge over the property in the amount of $1,642,043.

The specific terms of the loan, the interest rate charged or the repayment dates are not included in the public documents.

Panton was unwilling to share this information in response to questions from the Compass.

The schedule accompanying the land transfer makes reference to a separate “loan agreement” dated 3 April, 2023, between Panton and Turner and her husband Eric.

The specifics of the transaction are not listed in the Register of Interests for Members of Parliament, which was also reviewed by the Compass this week.

MPs are required under the Standards in Public Life Act to declare details of their assets and financial obligations, including property ownership and loans.

Turner’s declaration does include reference to her ownership of the Patrick’s Island property, Block 24C, Parcel 35, as one of three pieces of land that she jointly owns with her husband.

A CIREBA listing for the property describes it as a “canal front executive home” and confirms it sold for $1,398,000 (the same price listed in the documents, minus the consideration for ‘chattels’).

In Turner’s declaration, the only reference to a loan is listed as “bridge financing” from a private individual.

The entry describes it as an “interest bearing loan” with repayment upon sale of a separate property owned by Turner in Patrick’s Island. It does not specify how much the loan is for.

That property is the former residence of the Prospect MP and is currently up for sale, according to real estate adverts. The five-bedroom home, which sits on 0.4 acre of land, has an asking price of CI$1.3 million.

It is not clear why Turner did not seek financing through a bank for the transaction.

Panton: Arrangement ‘disclosed as required by law’

In an emailed response to the Compass on Tuesday afternoon, Panton said that “the loan agreement was handled by external counsel and in a fully arms-length manner” and was a “private short-term bridge loan”.

He defended the terms of the loan, saying they were “consistent with typical retail loans”, adding, “[M]y counsel executed a Charge over associated property as security. The loan details are therefore a matter of public record and fully transparent.”

However, he did not answer Compass inquiries about the specifics of the loan, including what the interest terms were. These were also absent from the details in the public record.

“In respect of this matter, I believe I have complied with requirements under the Standards in Public Life Act and any other Acts or codes. I understand that Minister Turner has done the same. I imagine that the Commission for Standards in Public Life would have sought clarification if it required any,” he added.

“This is a private matter that has been disclosed as required by law,” he stated.

While former PACT deputy premier, now independent Opposition MP, Chris Saunders would not comment on the transaction, he said institutions like the Standards in Public Life Commission are established for these matters and “it is for these public institutions to decide on.”

In our questions to the two MPs, the Compass asked if either individual felt that Turner’s financial debt to Panton could impact or be perceived to impact either individual’s decision-making on government business.

Panton did not address this in his statement; Turner did not respond.

At the time of the purchase of the Patrick’s Island property, Panton was premier, and he and Turner were Cabinet colleagues.

Panton was later deposed following a vote of no confidence in his PACT government in November of the same year.

In the lead-up to that vote, there had been multiple reports of dissention within Panton’s ranks.

Turner was one of seven MPs to vote with the then premier and the government, staunchly sticking by Panton and the PACT government, saying she was “going nowhere” until or unless she was instructed to do so by her constituents.

While the no-confidence motion itself was not fatal to Panton’s leadership, he was ousted from the job shortly afterwards, to be replaced by his deputy Juliana O’Connor-Connolly. Turner remained as health minister in the new UPM coalition.

Code of conduct contravened?

Panton introduced a detailed Ministerial Code of Conduct in his first 100 days in charge of the PACT administration.

The PACT acronym stands for people-driven, accountable, competent and transparent.

In an introduction to that document, he wrote, “The more transparent we are, the more accountable we are to the public. The better we are at transparency, the better we will get at decision making and resource allocation … It is our duty to engender the trust and maintain the confidence of the people we serve.”

The Progressives Opposition, in its statement, suggested the arrangement “seems to contravene multiple sections of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and call into question the integrity and accountability of public officials, potentially eroding the public’s trust in the system”.

They pointed to the provisions of the code that relate to public trust and pecuniary conflict of interest.

The transaction, the Opposition pointed out, could compromise the minister’s ability to make impartial decisions.

“For instance, the Minister might feel pressured to support policies or decisions that benefit the then Premier. The power dynamic created by such a significant financial obligation could unduly influence the Minister’s actions and decisions, raising serious ethical concerns,” the statement continued.

The ministerial code notes that a “pecuniary conflict of interest may arise if a Minister could reasonably be perceived as standing to gain or lose financially from decisions or acts for which he or she is responsible, or from information to which he or she has access. A pecuniary conflict of interest could, for example, relate to the value of land or shares that a Minister owns, or the turnover of business in which a Minister has an ownership interest.”

The Opposition stated that if the transaction or its handling breaches the Ministerial Code, “it would represent a flagrant disregard for transparency and ethical governance”.

It added, “Political corruption can manifest in various forms, including the undue influence of financial obligations on the decision-making processes. The Ministerial Code requires that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try to influence their work in an inappropriate manner.'”

The Opposition said that even if there is no intention of corruption, the Ministerial Code states that ministers are responsible for ensuring that no possible or perceived conflicts exist or appear to exist between their personal interests and their public duty.

“Thus, the perception of impropriety is also a concern that must be avoided,” it said.

When it comes to the declarations on the Register of Interest, the Opposition reminded that this register is “crucial” for ensuring transparency and accountability in public office.

“Given the reporting about how the debt was recorded, we would ask whether Minister Turner properly and adequately recorded this loan as required. Also, should Mr Panton include it as an ‘asset’ in his Register of Interest?”

James Whittaker also contributed to this report.