APNU/AFC now promises Public-Private Partnership Unit

After turbulent relations with Private Sector

One of the A Partnership For National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) pledges in its recently released manifesto is to promote Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). According to observers, however, this comes despite the Government’s lamentable track record on such partnerships while in office

A Public-Private Partnership is a means of funding expensive infrastructural projects meant to provide an important public service. It is a collaboration between the State and Private Sector. According to APNU/AFC, it intends to set up a Public-Private Partnership Unit to promote such partnerships.
The manifesto gives some examples of potential projects, including infrastructure for transportation such as roads, rails and ferries. Another example is in the construction and operation of renewable energy and gas generating plants.
The coalition also promises that the construction and operationalisation of specialised hospitals will be pursued under this arrangement. This is despite the coalition itself sabotaging previous efforts by the PPP/C Administration to build one.
Other initiatives thrown out by the coalition party in its manifesto include the construction of new housing schemes and facilities that can attract re-migrants. Another proposal was the construction of new regional residential care facilities for senior citizens, orphans and differently-abled individuals. Another proposal was the development of Information and Communications Technology centres.
The Government’s relations with the Private Sector have reached to the point where it refused to pay monies owed to Trinidad company Dipcon, despite a court order to do so. The Trinidad-based construction company then took Finance Minister Winston Jordan to court for failing to honour the payment of millions of dollars, which was awarded to Dipcon by Justice Rishi Persaud in 2015.
Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry had ordered Minister Jordan to pay Dipcon the US$2.2 million award or face jail time. He did not pay the fine and at the penultimate moment, President David Granger issued a grant of respite saving him from jail, in keeping with his powers under Article 188 of the Constitution.
After this case, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had noted that the Government’s treatment of the issue sends a bad signal to the Private Sector “that contracts can be broken at will, orders of the court against the State, even in commercial disputes, can be ignored at will.”
The Government was even taken to court by a local company, the Berbice Bridge Company Incorporated (BBCI), which had actually entered a PPP with the Government in order to construct a bridge across the Berbice River. However, efforts by the company to raise tolls after years of not making profits were met by the coalition Government’s takeover of the bridge.
Prior to filing the legal challenge, the Bridge Company had written Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson asking for the facts and reasons for takeover within 14 days as provided for by Section 15 of the Judicial Review Act. However, they claimed that the Minister never responded.
The new tolls proposed by the BBCI were to take effect on November 12, 2018, but the Government, through Minister Patterson, issued an order and unilaterally took control of the bridge on November 1, 2018.
However, the BBCI approached the High Court late November, asking it to quash the Minister’s order, thus allowing the company to resume responsibility for the bridge and also to implement the toll hikes. Both Minister Patterson and Attorney General Basil Williams were named defendants in the court action and were served with notices.
In the 1970s and 1980s, numerous private properties were compulsorily acquired by the then People’s National Congress (PNC) Administration. These properties include what is now Citizens Bank, Hope Estate Limited, a huge tract of land at Liliendaal, Takuba Lodge, Echilibar Villas and dozens more.
In many instances, no monies were paid to the owners of these properties and in the cases where there were payments, the price was pegged to previous valuations as was the law during that period.