New
Jada Loutoo
It is clear that there is no factual or legal basis for the police to take action against A&V Oil or its owner, Nizam Baksh.
“This would only add to the damages that TT taxpayers would face for any unconstitutional police action to maliciously pursue this case.”
“Any prosecution by the police of the allegations made by Petrotrin in light of the decision taken by the arbitrators would amount to an abuse and abuse of the prosecution process”, is the position of former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj , who is leading a team of lawyers for the rental operator in its legal battle against the now defunct state-owned oil refinery.
Last week, an arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of A&V and awarded it the sum of $ 84 million held in receivership, plus damages yet to be determined.
Commissioner Gary Griffith told a press conference on Monday that the police investigation into the allegations was continuing and the adjudicators’ decision had nothing to do with police investigations into the case.
He said the police legal department was looking to hire an independent expert to help with several areas, including a forensic investigation to validate the legitimacy of the amounts of crude.
A&V Oil has been charged with tampering with seals and improper practices in the process of delivering crude oil.
Petrotrin has terminated its contract with A&V to explore and extract crude oil from the Catshill field, Barrackpore, for sale to Petrotrin, following the discovery of an internal audit report. The case was first made public in 2017 by opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
An investigation was triggered after she alleged on a political platform that A&V overestimated its oil production and was getting away with fraud and misconduct because Baksh was a friend of the Prime Minister and a financier of the PNM party .
On Wednesday, Maharaj said the cheap politics had influenced the investigation.
The Arbitrators – Sir Dennis Byron, former President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), who also served as President; Lord David Hope and retired Court of Appeal Judge Humphrey Stollmeyer held that Petrotrin did not have reasonable grounds to suspect A&V had misbehaved.
In response to Sunday Newsday’s questions about the police investigations, Maharaj said the issues resolved by the arbitration tribunal were the same allegations that were the subject of Petrotrin’s complaint to the police two years ago. .
In 2019, police took possession of documents belonging to A&V Oil during a search of its offices in San Francique.
Maharaj also noted that at the arbitration hearing, Petrotrin called his experts who testified under oath and who were cross-examined by him and his team.
Likewise, A&V called their experts and they too were drilled by Petrotrin lawyers, led by Deboarah Peake, SC.
“The arbitrators decided the issues after considering all the evidence and submissions presented on behalf of Petrotrin and A&V.”
Maharaj said this was why it was important for the government to take action to have the arbitrators’ decision tabled in Parliament.
He said the police always have the right to investigate anyone on reasonable grounds.
“If these investigations lead to prosecution, the prosecution must be supported by evidence that allows the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt.
“If the police investigate and lay frivolous criminal charges, the injured party would be entitled to substantial damages,” he said, adding that anyone in a case where the police abuse their powers and bring frivolous charges, could claim damages. for the offense of professional misconduct in the exercise of a public function.
“The police have their job to do, but I want to make it clear that as an attorney for A&V and Mr. Baksh, I would certainly do my duty if the police abuse or abuse their powers in this matter.”
Petrotrin called on to appeal
Petrotrin, meanwhile, was asked to appeal to overturn the ruling on the grounds that the panel made fundamental errors.
Advice was provided by its senior counsel, Deborah Peake, SC, who led the refinery team in the arbitration.
“… We respectfully consider that the award reveals gross and fundamental errors in reading the award and that the arbitrators are guilty of misconduct in the conduct of the proceedings. The conclusions on the main questions are irrational and not supported by evidence. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the prospects for annulment of the award are good. “
Peake warned that the company could end up paying large sums if the arbitration decision is not appealed.
“Unless the award is overturned, it is highly likely that at any further hearing on the question of the amount of damages to which the tribunal has decided that A&V is entitled, the tribunal will award substantial damages, as much as more than he decided (remarkably given the evidence) that all of A&V’s witnesses are credible.
Maharaj said on Wednesday there was no evidence to support the allegations against A&V or to terminate his contract.
He also stressed that the parties had agreed that the arbitration award would be final and binding, not subject to review or appeal to any tribunal or judicial authority.
“It was expected that in the event of a dispute, they would go to arbitration and be bound by this decision.”
However, he said he would have no complaints if the issue was further debated, as it was “better for the lawyers … more fees, but it would be an additional waste of taxpayer money.”
On Thursday, Finance Minister Colm Imbert, as Petrotrin’s sole company, was contacted for comment. He received Sunday Newsday’s questions sent over WhatsApp, as evidenced by the two blue check marks, but did not respond.
Maharaj said on Friday that there was no reason to apply to the High Court to challenge the arbitrators’ findings and award.
He said it would do nothing more than “tactically” delay the inevitable outcome.
Maharaj warned that the new board should not make the same mistakes as its predecessors and that it would be in taxpayers’ best interests for the company to “cut its losses.”
Politically motivated
Maharaj, a former attorney general under UNC administration, believes the policy influenced the investigations that led Petrotrin to terminate the contract in December 2017.
“I say that because the acts show it conclusively, the investigation was launched by the leader of the opposition during a political meeting of the UNC. She made serious allegations of fraud and misconduct against Mr. Baksh and A&V and linked her to the Prime Minister. “
Both Dr Rowley and Baksh have admitted their close friendship.
Maharaj said the opposition leader intended to use an interim report from Petrotrin officials to score political points against the prime minister.
“It was crude politics. She didn’t care if it was true or false. She didn’t care, she was destroying Mr. Baksh’s reputation and A&V’s business reputation.
“It wasn’t fair. It was cheap politics, â€he said.
Last Monday, Persad-Bissessar said she had nothing to do with the case.
Maharaj also blamed the feet of former Petrotrin chairman Wilfred Espinet, who said he relied on the opposition leader’s allegations, approved them and decided to prosecute them.
“He knew from the information that these allegations were inconsistent with Petrotrin’s records.”
Petrotrin has appointed two overseas companies, Kroll Consulting Canada Co and Gaffney, Cline & Associates of the United Kingdom to conduct audits based on a report prepared by its internal audit department on its exploration and production operations of January to July 2018. The audit department found the lessor had overestimated its production capacity and supplies for which Petrotrin paid approximately US $ 8 million. Kroll confirmed Petrotrin’s audit report, which Gaffney Cline also corroborated by stating that the Catshill Reservoir was not capable of producing the volumes indicated by A&V.
Contacted for comment, Espinet declined. “I don’t want to comment. What is this going to accomplish?
The results
The arbitrators found sufficient flaws in Petrotrin’s audit report which it used to arrive at the decision to terminate its contract with A&V.
They found that Petrotrin had not reviewed the evidence of what was actually happening on the ground in the Catshill wellfield from January to June 2017. He was critical of the timing of the audit team’s visit to the site. field, saying they were satisfied that the Catshill field was capable of producing the amounts of oil that A&V said they sold to Petrotrin.
The court declared that it would have been necessary to take into account all of what would have revealed the necessary investigations on the capacity of the field: that is, contrary to what had been indicated by the audit report, it was able to produce the quantities of oil shown on the sales tickets.
Petrotrin had claimed that there had been siphoning of oil, but the court stressed that this was not part of the allegation made by the company against the operator before it made its decision to end its activities. .
They felt that it seemed unlikely that any subterfuge could have gone unnoticed, and there was no evidence of overflow.
The arbitrators also found that there was no reason to suspect that the operator was involved with anyone else in illegal or fraudulent activities.
They also held that, unlike a case of justifying a decision to arrest or search by the police, where the possibility that the person may be innocent outweighs the public interest and cannot be resolved so long. that action has not been taken, the possibility of an innocent explanation of what investigations have revealed must be fully taken into account in the objective assessment before the decision is made.
A&V is now expected to receive the $ 84 million held in escrow, to settle an unpaid bill for the crude oil it supplied, compensation for lost revenue by November 18, 2024, and damages that have yet to be paid. been quantified but could number in the hundreds. millions.
Peake, in his view to appeal the ruling, said it was putting Petrotrin and his successor Heritage in serious financial jeopardy.
Heritage Petroleum did not respond to questions from Sunday Newsday, but that newspaper understands that the board is currently reviewing the arbitration panel’s findings, Peake’s legal opinion, and may seek further legal advice before taking a decision on how to move forward.
Over the weekend, Baksh, speaking through his lawyer, said he wanted justice.