No losses, just benefits from ‘overpayments’

Dear Editor,
With reference to the ongoing conversation on the ‘overpayments’ of contractors’ payments at Rose Hall Estate, GuySuCo claimed that they suffered ‘losses due to the overpayments’ to contractors. GuySuCo claimed ‘losses and damages’ resulted from the 130 hectares tilled. The tilled land is planted and expected to yield over 700 tonnes of sugar. This clearly showed that the corporation did not suffer any ‘losses and damages’ but instead will gain exponentially in the process.
There is a common law principle which states that, ‘nobody should profit from crime; this fundamental moral principle is uncontroversial’. This supports the fact that if benefits accrued from the ‘overpayments’ then that will negate any ‘losses’ perceived. Furthermore, if it is argued that the contractors tilled what they were paid to do then it must be stated conclusively that if these contractors were not paid by hour, they would have withdrawn their services and the 130 hectares would not have been tilled, hence no benefits accruing.
There is also another legal principle which states that, ‘nullum crimen sine lege’ – ‘a person should not face criminal punishment except for an act that was criminalised by law before he/she performed the act. This idea is also manifested in laws that require criminal acts to be publicised in unambiguous statutory text’. It is clear from an email (Appendix 3) from the CEO stated that ‘he will be holding the Estate Managers and Agriculture Managers accountable for any variation from the cost per hectares’. This means that it was only then that clear guidance was given by the CEO with regards to the ambiguity contained in the contracts approved by GuySuCo. This retroactive directive was given after the Internal Audit was completed.
I do hope that others can join this conversation.

Yours sincerely,
Narendra Lall