Jean Henry Céant Clarifies His Role in the ONA–RBI Case

Port-au-Prince, October 2, 2025 – During his appearance on the show « Micro Vérité », Me Jean Henry Céant, a retired notary, provided clarifications regarding the investment of the National Old Age Insurance Office (ONA) in the RBI company linked to Dr. Réginald Boulos, under the instruction of the then-president, Jovenel Moïse. According to the former Prime Minister, Jean Henry Céant, the matter dates back to an agreement between the head of state and the businessman concerning a real estate project intended for public administration executives in Thomassin 39. The arrangement stipulated ONA's participation up to 22% of the shares in the RBI company, in exchange for funding of 65 million gourdes. The notary explains that he was solicited by ONA to authenticate and execute the transaction. In this context:

1. ONA was to obtain 22% of shares in the RBI company, materialized by a share certificate.
2. ONA benefited from exclusivity: any mortgage loan related to the project had to go through the institution.
3. ONA held a seat on the board of directors of the partner company.
4. ONA would receive dividends in priority, before any other shareholder.

Céant specifies that the Bank of the Republic of Haiti (BRH) had indeed disbursed the funds, which were then handed over to RBI, the company of which Dr. Réginald Boulos is the CEO, via his notarial office, in strict compliance with official instructions. A Role as Executor Facing the criticisms that circulated after the death of President Jovenel Moïse, Céant insists: his role was exclusively that of an instrumenting notary, meaning he was responsible for executing an operation defined by the parties, without decision-making power over the underlying financial or political choices. A Still Sensitive Matter While Céant's clarifications place his intervention within the legal framework of his profession, the case remains symbolic of a controversial mode of governance under Jovenel Moïse:

1. recurrent use of public resources through ONA,
2. investment choices oriented towards large private groups,
3. and recurrent tensions between oversight institutions and political actors.

By providing these details, Me Céant primarily seeks to dispel ambiguity about his personal role. However, the ONA–RBI case remains a revealing indicator of the complex relationships between political power, the private sector, and public institutions in Haiti, at a time when the question of transparency and good governance remains central.