Dear Editor,
Contrary to AFC leader, Mr. Nigel Hughes’ false claim that a feasibility study was not done for the Skeldon Modernization Project, a feasibility study was in fact done by Booker Tate. The Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) initially lacked needed experience and the financial capital needed to maintain the sugar estates and factories during economically difficult periods. Consequently, in the late 1980’s, former President Desmond Hoyte asked Booker Tate to take over the management of GuySuCo. This manifested into a contract by an Agreement between the Government of Guyana and Booker Tate Limited dated October 12th, 1990, renewed March 7th, 1994, and March 26th, 1996.
In 2000, GuySuCo hired Booker Tate to assist in developing the sugar industry to boost sugar production, lower operating costs, and improve profitability. This was a separate contractual agreement. Booker Tate conducted a viability and expansion study which recommended developing sugar production in the east of the country where agricultural conditions were more favourable. This resulted in GuySuCo deciding to construct a new sugar cane factory at the Skeldon Sugar Estate.
Booker Tate was not only tasked with conducting the feasibility study but based on the findings and recommendations derived from the feasibility study, they were also tasked with executing the entire project. This included overseeing the public tendering process, project design, scope of works, selection of the contractor, and project supervision to ensure quality assurance. One of Booker Tate’s roles was to provide a comprehensive and detailed factory specification which would include the latest designs and technologies. The overall factory design was undertaken by a Chinese design institute and approved by Booker Tate. Booker Tate’s role included the monitoring of construction process and ensuring design specifications, and quality control with respect to standards of workmanship, were maintained.
The relationship between GuySuCo and Booker Tate deteriorated due to sub-standard performance by Booker Tate in their oversight role of the Skeldon Project. To this end, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Nanda Gopaul, GuySuCo withheld payment of Booker Tate’s management fees, which eventually led to Booker Tate taking court action against GuySuCo for same to be settled. The decision to withhold payment was based on the Board’s discovery of numerous acts of inefficiencies, mismanagement, poor decision making, and major planning deficits and flaws in the construction of the factory.
Based on legal advice, GuySuCo filed a counterclaim against Booker Tate for alleged contractual breaches in relation to the Skeldon Project. Booker Tate was in breach of its obligations under clause 4 and 2 of Schedule A of the Agreement. The Affidavit filed in the High Court by GuySuCo detailed the alleged breaches, which can be summarized as follows: Yield loss due to wrong choice of field layout; Loss of sugar; Untimely installation of drainage structure; Bungled reconfiguration of ridge and furrow to broad beds; Poor placement of bridges; Poor construction of all-weather road; Water supply structure; Multiple design flaws of the factory and Modification of plant equipment for design capacity.
The court proceedings began in October 2010 followed by the Supreme Court Judge’s ruling in February 2015. The Judge chose to rule only on Booker Tate’s case against GuySuCo and not on the counter claim by GuySuCo. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, GuySuCo then filed an appeal with Guyana’s Appeal Court for that Court to consider its counter claim. In May 2015, the APNU+AFC formed a new government, and subsequently withdrew GuySuCo’s case against Booker Tate and paid them as per the initial court judgement.
Interestingly, Booker Tate’s lawyer was none other than Nigel Hughes. At the time when the APNU+AFC Government decided to withdraw the appeal filed against Booker Tate by the PPP/C Government, Hughes was the Chairman of the AFC and attorney representing Booker Tate. The question is, why did the APNU+AFC Government not pursue the appeal against Booker Tate?
Sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
