JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, May 8, 2025

Privy Council: Did politics taint end of lawsuit against Jones?

by

Derek Achong
2179 days ago
20190520

This coun­try’s high­est court has ruled that there may have been a ba­sis to sup­port claims that there was po­lit­i­cal in­ter­fer­ence in the de­ci­sion to with­draw a US$97m law­suit against for­mer Petrotrin ex­ec­u­tive chair­man Mal­colm Jones.

The Gov­ern­ment had said the de­ci­sion to drop the case was sup­port­ed by the le­gal opin­ion of British Queen’s Coun­sel Vin­cent Nel­son, now the State’s key wit­ness against for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan and for­mer UNC sen­a­tor Ger­ald Ramdeen.

In a judge­ment de­liv­ered at the Unit­ed King­dom’s Supreme Court in Lon­don on Mon­day, five Law Lords of the Privy Coun­cil ruled that the lo­cal courts were wrong to dis­miss UNC ac­tivist Ravi Bal­go­b­in Ma­haraj’s law­suit which sought the dis­clo­sure of doc­u­ments re­lat­ed to Petrotrin’s failed bil­lion-dol­lar World Gas-to-Liq­uids (GTL) plant deal. Ma­haraj, in a state­ment, ded­i­cat­ed his vic­to­ry to the for­mer work­ers of Petrotrin who were ter­mi­nat­ed last year af­ter the com­pa­ny was closed.

As part of the judge­ment, Lord Phillip Sales said that the ev­i­dence in the claim sug­gest­ed that there may have been “some grounds for think­ing” that there was po­lit­i­cal in­ter­fer­ence in drop­ping the case against Jones.

The Privy Coun­cil al­so re­ferred to state­ments at­trib­uted to At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi which were made ahead of Nel­son’s ad­vice which gave the “ap­pear­ance of in­volve­ment of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al in tak­ing that de­ci­sion.”

Jones died in Au­gust 2017 af­ter a civ­il claim, ini­ti­at­ed by Ram­lo­gan un­der the then Peo­ple’s Part­ner­ship ad­min­is­tra­tion, was ter­mi­nat­ed.

In ear­ly 2016, Nel­son ad­vised the then Petrotrin board that the case had to be dis­con­tin­ued as state­ments of two key wit­ness­es showed that the deal was a bad busi­ness de­ci­sion and not based on neg­li­gence.

Last month, Nel­son was charged along­side Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen over a State le­gal fee kick­back con­spir­a­cy.

Nel­son has signed a plea agree­ment with the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) to plead guilty to the charges and tes­ti­fy against Ram­lo­gan and Ramdeen.

In the case be­fore the Privy Coun­cil, the UNC ac­tivist was es­sen­tial­ly grant­ed a life­line in his bid to ex­pose the PNM ad­min­is­tra­tion’s rea­son for dis­con­tin­u­ing the law­suit against Jones.

On Au­gust 4, 2017, Jones, 74, passed away at Petrotrin’s Au­gus­tus Long Hos­pi­tal in Pointe-a-Pierre.

The de­ci­sion means that Ma­haraj can now con­tin­ue to pur­sue his law­suit seek­ing dis­clo­sure be­fore a new High Court Judge. It does not guar­an­tee that he would be even­tu­al­ly suc­cess­ful in his claim.

Sales, who wrote the 15-page judge­ment, stat­ed that Ma­haraj had a re­al­is­tic prospect of suc­cess in prov­ing that there was a strong pub­lic in­ter­est in dis­clos­ing the doc­u­ments, which Ma­haraj were seek­ing would nor­mal­ly be con­sid­ered ex­empt un­der the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act.

The doc­u­ments were the wit­ness state­ments of for­mer Petrotrin ex­ec­u­tives Char­maine Bap­tiste and An­tho­ny Chan Tack. They were vi­tal in the com­pa­ny’s ar­bi­tra­tion against World GTL over the failed deal.

Bap­tiste and Chan Tack’s state­ments were be­ing sought as they were the cat­a­lyst for the de­ci­sion to with­draw Petrotrin’s law­suit against Jones.

The Privy Coun­cil said it was in the pub­lic in­ter­est to dis­close the state­ments as it “con­sid­ers that it is ar­guable that they are of sig­nif­i­cant weight, with a view to se­cur­ing trans­paren­cy and ac­count­abil­i­ty in re­la­tion to rel­e­vant de­ci­sions in a num­ber of re­spects.”

The court held that the even­tu­al dis­clo­sure of the con­tentious state­ments would help the pub­lic form their own views on Jones’ con­duct in the World GTL deal and on Petrotrin’s han­dling of its sub­se­quent case against him.

Ma­haraj was rep­re­sent­ed by Richard Clay­ton, QC, Ram­lo­gan, Christo­pher Knight, Chelsea Stew­art and Alvin Pariags­ingh. Petrotrin was rep­re­sent­ed by Thomas Roe, QC, and Do­minique Mar­tineau.

About the World GTL Deal

In 2005, Petrotrin and World GTL en­tered in­to a joint ven­ture to build, fi­nance and op­er­ate a gas-to-liq­uids plant in Trinidad. The $2.7 bil­lion fa­cil­i­ty was sup­posed to con­vert nat­ur­al gas in­to a more ozone-friend­ly liq­ue­fied form of diesel.

Al­though part of the struc­ture of the plant was com­plet­ed, it re­mained non-func­tion­al due to lack of ap­pro­pri­ate tech­nol­o­gy. There were al­so is­sues with con­struc­tion de­lays and ex­ten­sive cost over­runs.

Petrotrin ini­ti­at­ed ar­bi­tra­tion pro­ceed­ings against the plant’s for­mer own­er in the In­ter­na­tion­al Cham­ber of Com­merce and it even­tu­al­ly won. How­ev­er, the ar­bi­tra­tion award is yet to be paid.

World GTL ini­ti­at­ed its own ar­bi­tra­tion pro­ceed­ings at Lon­don Court of In­ter­na­tion­al Ar­bi­tra­tion, which was al­so won by Petrotrin.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored