Government could have saved millions of taxpayers’ dollars by avoiding litigation against beverage company SM Jaleel.
Last year, the Trinidadian company and its local subsidiary, Guyana Beverages
Attorney General Basil Williams
Inc, had filed proceedings in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) seeking a refund of the now repealed environmental tax that was paid in Guyana over a seven-year period in light of a CCJ ruling in 2015 in a similar lawsuit filed by Surinamese company Rudisa Beverages.
At the time of the announcement, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams was adamant in fighting the matter and was confident that Guyana could have won the legal battle against SM Jaleel.
“In the Rudisa matter, it was noted that the Government of Guyana did not lead evidence to show that the tax was transferred. We intend to lead such evidence in this case…we are confident that the team of persons we have assembled, to be able to testify before the CCJ on this, questions whether the environmental tax was transferred to the consumers,” Williams had told reporters.
However, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall lamented that not only did the Government, on the advice of its Attorney General, waste millions in hiring “experts” and for litigation purposes, it would also lose more funds when it has to
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall
dip into the treasury to refund the beverage giant as ordered by the CCJ.
Nandlall, in his weekly column “The Unruly Horse”, said Government, instead of going to the court, should have worked out an out-of-court settlement with SM Jaleel.
“A prudent Attorney General, with a sound understanding of the Rudisa’s ruling, would have never contested the SM Jaleel case. He would have recognised, very early, that the CCJ would not depart from its previous ruling lightly and in the Jaleel’s case, there were no exceptional facts for them to do so,” Nandlall outlined.
He posited that a “tactful” Attorney General would have approached the company and worked out an amicable resolution, including the payment of a reduced sum and a generous payment plan.
According to Nandlall, Government has just opened the floodgates for more lawsuits to come from other beverage companies.
“ANSA McAL, GraceKennedy and others are next in line to sue. I have no doubt that the blundering will continue,” he stated, noting that he had received letters from those companies while he was AG.
Moreover, the former Attorney General emphasised again that the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) were to be blamed for the Rudisa case against Guyana in the first place.
Nandlall highlighted that before Rudisa filed its claim, then Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, tabled an amendment to the Customs Act to remove the offensive provision contained therein, which ran afoul of the Treaty of Chaguaramas.
“I made public that unless this Bill is passed, Guyana will be forced to refund all the taxes levied under this provision of the Customs Act. By this time, I had already received a letter from Rudisa threatening litigation. I made the letter public,” he reminded.
Nandlall further reminded, however, that the joint Opposition used every opportunity to dally and when the Bill was eventually debated, they voted it down even though they were aware of the consequences.
“By this time, Rudisa filed its claim at the CCJ. I appeared and extracted an undertaking from Rudisa’s lawyers that were the Government able to pass the Bill in a second attempt in the National Assembly, the company will withdraw its claim. As a result, Rudisa’s lawyers were magnanimous enough to join me in an application to adjourn the matter for a period of three months to facilitate the Government of Guyana to put the Bill before the National Assembly a second time,” he explained.
Nandlall noted that the joint Opposition again voted down the Bill when it was presented for the second time.
“In my presentation in the National Assembly, I painstakingly explained all which transpired before the CCJ; I emphasised that this is Guyana’s last opportunity to enact the Bill; I warned that a failure to do so would result in drastic financial consequences. All the speakers on our side advanced similar presentations. Like the first time when the Bill was debated, our plea fell on deaf ears. Mr Carl Greenidge led the onslaught for the APNU. He boldly asserted that the CCJ could not dictate for the Guyana Parliament. Mr Khemraj Ramjattan argued along the same vein, “the CCJ does not run this Parliament, we do!” he declared. They, eventually, voted the Bill down,” Nandlall stated.
