UNC activist gets 2 of 4 witness statements

UNC activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj has received two of the four witness statements which British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson relied on to give his opinion to Petrotrin that its former executive chairman Malcolm Jones had a good chance of defending the multi-million-dollar lawsuit against him.

The witness statements were those of Charmaine Baptiste and Anthony Chan Tack – both executives of the state-owned oil company – in arbitration proceedings between World GTL and Petrotrin over the failed gas-to-liquids plant.

Maharaj was not provided with the statements of two other Petrotrin employees, Kevin Singh and Imtiaz Ali, who were also mentioned in Nelson’s advice.

Maharaj received the two witness statements after he was successful in appealing to the Privy Council.

At a post-Cabinet media briefing, last month, the Prime Minister announced he had instructed Energy Minister Franklyn Khan to instruct Petrotrin to hand over the witness statements to Maharaj.

Maharaj confirmed he received the two statements Nelson relied on to give his opinion, on October 2, 2015, that Jones had a good chance of defending the lawsuit and that “there was a reasonable likelihood that a judge will be persuaded there was a bad business decision but no negligence.” The State relied on this advice in coming to its decision to withdraw its claim against Jones.

In its lawsuit, Petrotrin had alleged Jones "executed the joint and several agreement, without simultanously or prior to such execution, directing and/or procuring the recognition and amendment of the shareholders agreement and/or the general project agreement to provide that, in the event Petrotrin should be called upon to advance funds pursuant to the joint and several agreement, Petrotrin will be entitled to assume management and financial control of the constrution of the GTL plant."

Baptiste’s statement spoke of increases in the budget for the gas-to-liquids plant and noted that because WGTL was either unwilling or unable to make any contributions, Petrotrin provided all the equity contributions. She also said in mid-2008, Petrotrin received reports that WGTL Trinidad had doubts about the plant’s ability to operate at a level that would satisfy the performance requirements, which would constitute a default under the credit agreement. This, she said, would have resulted in Credit Suisse being entitled to declare the loan, including interest, immediately due and payable.

“Petrotrin faced a serious situation. The relationship with WGTL was rapidly deteriorating. The costs of the project continued to spiral upwards and there were continuing concerns about project management and technology,” she said.

Chan Tack, in his statement, said from an early stage the project suffered overruns schedule revisions, and questions over the performance of the project technology and the economic viability of the project.

“At the same time, pursuant to the terms of the Sponsor Guarantee and Funding Agreement and the Guarantee Contribution Agreement, Petrotrin was required to contribute millions of dollars on behalf of both itself and WGTL Inc. to cover cost overruns and keep the Project afloat. WGTL did not contribute any funds. “

He also said by October 2008, his concerns about the project viability and safety had become so serious that he decided to resign from the WGTL Trinidad Board.

“Petrotrin – not WGTL – was the party that had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the project, and would have been the party stuck footing the bill while the 'fine tuning' was worked out. But if, in the end, it didn't work out, the Guarantee Contribution Agreement allowed WGTL to simply walk away from the project without contributing a single dollar to fund cost overruns,” he said in his witness statement.