Attorneys: Contractors 'shocked, upset' by PM's statements

The Court of Appeal's decision on statements by politicians on the appeal over the Estate Management Business Development Company Ltd's multi-million-dollar cartel claim lawsuit against a group of contractors and a former government minister will be known after June 30.

On that date, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Maria Wilson are expected to give their decision in an appeal filed by four of the contractors against a judge’s preliminary ruling in August 2020, which gave the EMBD the green light to pursue its claim.

Not all the parties who are named as defendants in the EMBD's claim appealed the 2020 ruling of the High Court. They agreed to file their defences 45 days after the Appeal Court gives it ruling based on the outcome of the appeal.

Former People's Partnership minister Dr Roodal Moonilal was a party to the consent agreement, as he did not appeal Aboud’s ruling. The consent order was entered and signed off by the three judges on May 26, when they reserved their ruling on the appeal.

At hearing at the Hall of Justice on Friday, the judges said they will also give their decision on what action they will take on a complaint one of the contractors raised about statements by the Prime Minister on June 12, as well as subsequent statements by Moonilal, the Oropouche East MP, on June 19.

Dr Rowley spoke at a media briefing at the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann’s and Moonilal spoke at a UNC meeting at the Aranguez North Secondary School. Both mentioned the EMBD appeal.

Earlier this week, attorneys for the EMBD and the contractors were summoned to Friday’s hearing to discuss a letter to the court from an attorney representing one of the appellants. That letter, sent to the court last Friday, referred to the Prime Minister’s statements and registered their client's “shock and upset” that the political arm of the State had spoken of a judgment being delivered by the court against them.

The judges questioned lead attorney for the contractors, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, who took strong objection to the court’s “interrogation.” He said sending the letter to the court, which he approved, was his duty as an attorney to raise the issue to “set the record straight...

“We were genuinely trying to assist the court.”

He also said his clients had full confidence in the judges. otherwise they would have asked them to disqualify themselves. or raised a bias complaint.

At Friday’s hearing, Dr Rowley’s statements were read out and a video recording of Moonilal’s address at the UNC meeting was played on one of the large flat-screen computer monitors at the Hall of Justice, before a packed courtroom of attorneys. The judges did not say what drew their attention to the statements made by Moonilal, but did ask the attorneys whether they had received an e-mail of the video.

Maharaj, who said his letter was sent after the PM’s statements were reported in the media, was asked why he chose not to contact the Prime Minister directly, or the State’s attorneys. He said he did not know what Moonilal had said.

The letter said, “Our clients are extremely concerned that it is reported publicly by the political arm of the State that a judgment has been given by the judicial arm of the State against them before they are made aware of the reasoning and the decision of the Court of Appeal,

“They are obviously shocked and very upset about that because of the confidence they have in the judicial arm of the State. “

The letter said the lawyers were instructed to write to the court because of the statements concerning the appeal.

“The client is entitled to be shocked….Are you telling me to write to the political arm of the State? My duty is to my client and to tell the court what the political arm stated…Lawyers have a fundamental right to communicate to the court in order for public confidence in the court to be unshaken.”

He said his duty was to his client for the court to “set the record straight” on the status of the appeal.

“I am not sure why court is so concerned with my communication to the court…No allegation was made against the court. I have total confidence in the court…"

He maintained what was done was “in good faith…in the interest of the administration of justice.”

He also stressed that no one should make statements suggesting a court has made a determination in a matter when it has not.

“The purpose of my letter is to let the court decide on what to do.”

King’s Counsel David Phillips, who leads the case for the EMBD, said he accepted Maharaj’s explanation of the intent behind the letter and his discharging his duty to the court.

“Nothing wrong was done by Mr Maharaj.”

He said it could be that Maharaj’s clients did not direct their minds to the consent orders.

Phillips said they, too, had full confidence in the court. However, he said it was “plainly inappropriate for anybody to suggest that the court might be influenced by an external party.

“It is our submission, we respectfully deprecate what Dr Moonilal has said.”

Like Maharaj, he said he had not known of Moonilal's statements before Friday's hearing.

In treating with the consent orders and what they meant, Phillips also said the Prime Minister’s statements were not inaccurate. He also said the EMBD had not been aware the Prime Minister was going to speak about the matter or that he had, until it had received a copy of the appellants’ letter.

It was suggested that Dr Rowley was referring to the court's order on the consensual position relating to the filing of the defences by those who were not subject to the appeal.

After the judges rose on two occasions during the hearing, they returned to say they would give their decision after they rule on June 30.

In August 2020, Justice James Aboud dismissed preliminary applications by five contractors – TN Ramnauth, Namalco, Kallco, Motilal Ramhit and Co and Fides Ltd – for the EMBD to detail the allegations against them so that they could fairly mount their defence, or strike out the claims.

Aboud also had before him EMBD’s lawsuit against Moonilal, as well as a consolidated case in which three companies sued EMBD over unpaid contracts for upgrading and rehabilitating access roads on Caroni lands and two contracts for rehabilitation works, totalling over $300 million.

The EMBD claims the work was defective and overpriced. In a counter-suit, the state entity is seeking to recoup money paid to the contractors.

The EMBD’s claim against Moonilal also includes former EMBD chief executive Gary Parmassar; former divisional manager at EMBD Madhoo Balroop; Andrew Walker; and another contractor.

Contacted for comment, Moonilal said he was not aware of what took place at Friday's hearing, nor were he or his attorneys asked to attend.

"I am not privy to what took place or the concerns of the court." However, he said he was "shocked" the court did not reprimand or caution the prime minister.

What the PM, MP said

At his media briefing, Rowley, as he spoke of the EMBD appeal, said, “The judge ruled…that they must put in a defence."

Rowley also alleged the Appeal Court ruled in favour of EMBD and “as we stand here now, Mr (sic) Moonilal and others have to put in a defence in the court to this claim for the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.

"To this day, none of them has put in a defence. So while Mr (sic) Moonilal is frothing about $3.4 million for the Caricom (crime) symposium, he has a defence to put in the court to account for hundreds of millions of dollars that contractors were facilitated with under his portfolio to the extent where he is a defendant in the court.”

At the UNC meeting, Moonilal referred to the Prime Minister’s press conference and accused the Government of “flogging the EMBD horse for eight years.”

He described the EMBD's civil case as a “PNM case,” and said every time there was an election, EMBD was spoken about. He questioned the Prime Minister’s knowledge of the outcome of the appeal and asked if Rowley was in cahoots with the judges.

“Are they speaking to him? Is he speaking to them?”

Moonilal also asked if the Prime Minister already knew what the Court of Appeal would decide.

“This speaks to the undermining of the rule of law, of the Judiciary,” he said, adding that it was a “serious matter in a country where a prime minister is telling the country he knows what the Court of Appeal will determine.”

Moonilal called on the Chief Justice to “clear the air,” and say if Rowley was “in touch with any or all judges of the Court of Appeal” and “putting pressure” on the judges.

“How do you know the outcome of the Court of Appeal ruling? Did the Prime Minister have private conversations with the Chief Justice or the judges who heard that matter?”

He also asked if there was an attempt to “influence” or “intimidate” the court into ruling in favour of the State.

On June 14, Moonilal sent out a press statement which mirrored what he said at the UNC meeting.