Latest update May 26th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- Pres. Ali defends foreign firms ‘flipping’ mining claims despite Guyana getting nothing from deals
- ‘Normalise with Israel or deal with Iran dies’ – Trump threatens Arab world
- Family says teen acted in self-defense in Corentyne fatal stabbing
- U.S. military launches new strikes on Iran
- Woman on the run after miner killed at Bamboo Landing
GGMC gives $385M contract to legally invalid company
…Chief Justice quashes decision
Chief Justice, Ian Chang, this past week quashed the decision of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), to award a $385M Contract to CB & R Mining, to construct the Aremu Road in Region Seven.
Chang’s ruling was on the grounds that the award of the contract by GGMC was made in violation of the provisions of the Procurement Act 2003, was unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, procedurally improper, ultra vires, null and void and of no legal effect.
Chief Justice, Ian Chang
BK International Inc. had challenged the award to CB&R Mining, on the grounds that the company was not a legal entity, was not the lowest bidder and it did not comply with any of the requirements as stipulated by the Procurement Act.
Attorney-at-law, Ralph Ramkarran, appeared on behalf of GGMC and claimed that it was not a unit or agency of the Ministry of Natural Resources and was not bound by the provisions of the Procurement Act and GGMC was therefore at liberty to accept or reject any or all bids without giving reasons.
Attorney-at-law, Robert Ramcharran, who appeared for BK International Inc. argued to the contrary and said that GGMC was a unit or agency of the Ministry of Natural Resources and was therefore bound by the provisions of the Procurement Act.
He argued too that whilst the award of the contract created private law rights, there was statutory under-pinning to the award of the contract and that statutory under-pinning gives rise to prerogative reliefs.
The Chief Justice in his ruling agreed that because of the powers created by the Mining Act over the administration of the GGMC and the Ministerial control of that body by the Minister of Natural Resources that made it an agency of the Ministry and thus fell within the definition of a procurement entity.
GGMC was therefore subjected to the provisions of the Procurement Act.
The Chief Justice also found that having regard to the statutory under-pinning to the award of the contract, the Court had jurisdiction to enquire into the award of the contract.
The Court found that CB&R Mining, did not comply with any of the requirements as stipulated by the Procurement Act, nor did it provide any evidence of its legal status.
Accordingly, the Court declared that the award of the contract to CB &R Mining should be set aside and GGMC should award the contract to the most responsive bidder.
CB&R Mining was represented by Attorney-at-law Stephen Lewis.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.