APNU+AFC owes explanation for ending legal action against Booker Tate – Singh
Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, in his closing presentation on the 2024 budget debate on Friday said that the APNU+AFC owes the people an explanation as to why they ended legal proceedings against Booker Tate in relation to the Skeldon Estate when they came into government.
Wrapping up five days of debate in the National Assembly at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, Singh noted that the opposition liked to cite the Skeldon Estate in presentations. However, he added, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo recently provided a “detailed explanation” pointing out that Booker Tate, a then world-class company, was contracted to be responsible for designing and supervising the construction of the Skeldon sugar factory.
According to the explanation, GuySuCo approached Booker Tate for assistance with sugar industry development; Booker Tate then conducted a feasibility study, from which the Skeldon sugar factory project was birthed. In 2004, GuySuCo entered into a written agreement with Booker Tate for the provision of project management services in respect of the implementation phase of the Skeldon Modernization Project. In 2005, GuySuCo began construction of a new sugar cane factory and electricity cogeneration plant at Skeldon Sugar Estate, and in 2008, the factory was commissioned. However, the relationship between GuySuCo and Booker Tate deteriorated due to substandard performance by the latter in its oversight role of the Skeldon Project.
Singh said that when the factory did not deliver on its expectations, “we the People’s Progressive Party/Civic government prior to demitting office in 2015, took Booker Tate to court… to hold them accountable for their failures in relation to delivering on their contractual obligation.”
According to the minister, that matter was ultimately subject to its first consideration in the court mere days around when the PPP/C government demitted office. He questioned why the APNU+AFC, which assumed office in May 2015, did not continue the matter to hold the company responsible. Singh said the APNU+AFC “owes an explanation to this country why they discontinued the legal action against Booker Tate.”
Booker Tate’s contract with the PPP/C government ended on March 31st, 2009. It is unclear therefore why Singh is referring to litigation that was to begin in 2015, some six years later.
Booker Tate has in the past disputed the PPP/C government’s contentions about why the Skeldon Sugar Modernisation
Project failed. One of the key factors was seen as the hiring of a Chinese company, CNTIC, which had never built such a factory.
In recent months, several senior government officials and supporters of the PPP/C have tried to focus blame for the failure on Booker Tate in an apparent bid to relieve Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo of responsibility. Jagdeo was President throughout the period from conception to inauguration of the factory and he has been widely blamed for its failure. In addition, the government had full control over the board of GuySuCo whose membership included its then General Secretary, Donald Ramotar.
Booker Tate had also succeeded in a case against GuySuCo. On February 20, 2015, the High Court ruled in favour of Booker Tate, ordering the Guyana Sugar Corporation to pay £664,750.91 ($204 million) for fees owed during the period it managed the industry.
In a ruling by Justice Rishi Persaud, GuySuCo lost two cases and the judge also dismissed the corporation’s counterclaim for damages due to insufficient evidence.
The legal battle had been ongoing since October 2010 when Booker Tate through its attorney Nigel Hughes took legal action, suing GuySuCo for millions owed for services rendered. Booker Tate had managed the sugar industry for around 20 years from 1990 but relations between it and the government soured around 2009 amid the construction woes surrounding the troubled Skeldon sugar factory and the contract was terminated.
In the first order entered on March 17th, 2015, Justice Persaud after reading the witness statement of Booker Tate’s Roger Speddy and the witness statement of then GuySuCo Chairman Dr Nanda Gopaul ordered that the plaintiff recover from GuySuCo the sum of £224,349 together with interest at 6% per annum from the 1st of October, 2010 to the 20th of February, 2015 and thereafter at the rate of 4% until fully paid together with costs of $150,000.
In the second order entered on March 19th, 2015 after reading the affidavit of defence of Aretha Adams, Assistant GuySuCo Company Secretary, the affidavit in reply of Speddy and other documents, the judge ordered that Booker Tate recover the sum of £345,589 together with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date for payment of the invoice. The judge also ordered that Booker Tate recover from GuySuCo the sum of £94,811 together with interest at the rate of 1% per month from and including the due date of actual receipt of payment by the defendants together with costs of $150,000.