Public Subsidy and Security Contracts: ULCC Referred After Shocking FJKL Report

Port-au-Prince, Sunday, March 8, 2026 —Two citizens are filing a complaint against practices they deem opaque, while the legal context raises questions about the chances of effective prosecution. A new alleged corruption case is shaking the Haitian political class. Referred by two citizens, Widner Bernard and Félix Miradieu, the Anti-Corruption Unit (ULCC) has been officially requested to investigate explosive revelations from the Fondasyon Je Klere (FJKL) concerning the management of the government led by Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé. What does the denunciation letter contain? The request, obtained by our editorial team, is based on an FJKL report dated March 6, 2026. Two main grievances are detailed therein. Firstly, the complainants denounce “opaque contracts” that would commit the Haitian state for the next fifty years. According to information published by the press, these agreements concern strategic sectors: a 50-year prison construction and operation project with Metric Facility S.A., a ten-year customs modernization contract with Evergreen System Limited, and a $52 million security agreement with Windward Wyoming LLC. The FJKL estimates that these commitments could cost the country billions of dollars and pose a “serious problem of national sovereignty.” Secondly, the applicants point to a subsidy of 150 million gourdes granted to Quisqueya University (UniQ), led by Jacky Lumarque, a former presidential candidate. They denounce possible “insider trading, nepotism, or favoritism,” emphasizing that Mr. Lumarque and Prime Minister Fils-Aimé are both members of the VÉRITÉ political platform. “The funding of the University would not be a bad thing if insider trading were not involved,” they write, criticizing the lack of transparency and the choice of a private university “with the highest tuition fees” while other public institutions are “dying out.” The letter also mentions contested practices at the National Education Fund (FNE), where some private universities would directly control the collection of the $1.50 contribution from the diaspora. Subsidy to UniQ: what does the law say? Fundamentally, the question of the legality of this subsidy warrants a nuanced analysis. Article 195 of the decree of March 11, 2020, published in the official gazette Le Miniteur on June 30, 2020, on the organization of higher education, explicitly authorizes the State to grant subsidies to private higher education institutions. Legally, the principle is therefore not inadmissible. However, as public policy experts point out, the real problem lies in the absence of “transparency in procedures” and “objective and verifiable criteria” for the allocation of these funds. In the absence of public selection mechanisms based on academic performance or actual needs, this type of discretionary decision opens the door to accusations of clientelism and political favoritism. As former deputy Alfredo Antoine states: “I will not criticize the subsidy granted by the former Minister of Finance and Economy, Mr. Alfred Mellus, to our Alma Mater, Quisqueya University, without having examined the memorandum of understanding.
I must first understand the motivating factor.” What are the chances for this complaint? It is on this question that the case runs up against the wall of Haitian judicial and political reality. Several contextual elements darken the prospects of successful prosecutions. Firstly, the ULCC itself, despite having opened over a hundred cases in ten years, has seen very few cases result in convictions. Impunity remains the rule, as illustrated by the PetroCaribe scandal where several billion US dollars were embezzled without any major political figure being definitively sanctioned. Secondly, a major obstacle has just been erected by the government itself. A controversial decree published in December 2025 has considerably complicated the impeachment procedure for high-ranking officials. Now, for a former minister or high official to be tried by an ordinary court, an impeachment procedure before the High Court of Justice would be required, necessitating a two-thirds majority in the lower house of Parliament — a threshold deemed “practically impossible” by many human rights organizations. Many legal experts believe that this decree, which extends the High Court’s jurisdiction to former officials, was designed to “protect those who steal state money.” Finally, the system remains riddled with systemic corruption. Recent investigations, such as the one targeting Minister of Sports Niola Lynn Sarah Devalien Octavius for an alleged embezzlement of 50 million gourdes, show that the ULCC can investigate and recommend prosecutions. But in this case, despite evidence of “illegal public procurement,” public action struggles to materialize. The complaint filed by citizens Bernard and Miradieu is legally sound and based on concrete evidence provided by the FJKL. However, its chances of success are hampered by a judicial system locked down by legal mechanisms protecting elites and a deeply rooted culture of impunity. As an expert recently wrote, “it is not poverty that generates corruption, but rather the opposite.” As long as leaders can equip themselves with legislative shields and oversight institutions remain under influence, denunciations, however well-substantiated, risk getting lost in the sands of impunity. The response of the ULCC and the prosecutors' offices, under pressure from a mobilized civil society, will be the first test of this government's real will to fight the corruption it claims to combat. Jean Wesley Pierre / Le Relief