Govt. agrees to pay Guytrac $226M in yet another out of court settlement

May 04, 2018 News

---

By Abena Rockcliffe-Campbell
The Government is getting ready to pay yet another hefty out of court settlement – this time, Guyana Tractor and Equipment (Guytrac) is the beneficiary.
Guytrac, owned by Hareshnarine Sugrim also known as “Chiney”, will receive $226M. The coalition government has already petitioned the National Assembly for approval of the sum in a supplementary paper.
In the supplementary paper, the government stated, “The additional resources ($226,161,235) are being sought to facilitate the procurement of six long broom excavators along with spare parts emanating from a legal matter between Guyana Tractor and Equipment and National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA).”
The supplementary provision is still to be considered.
Under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government, Guytrac was awarded a contract by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) for the supply of heavy duty equipment to the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA).
Cabinet had granted its usual no objection. However, Cabinet subsequently withdrew its no objection after it reportedly learnt that the equipment had arrived in Guyana even before the contract was awarded, suggesting that Guytrac may have been given a heads up about the need for the equipment and was further assured that it would have been able to secure the contract.
As a result, the Donald Ramotar administration wanted the contract rescinded. A Cabinet memorandum to that effect, dated 17th December 2014, was sent to NPTAB and NDIA. Cabinet stated explicitly that it was rescinding it’s no objection and ordered that an evaluation be redone.
It is not clear, if the evaluation was ever redone.
However, according to a court document in this newspaper’s procession, on March 3, 2015, NPTAB “legally terminated” the contract in writing. The reason given to Guytrac was the absence of a security performance bond. NDIA claimed that even before the contract was terminated, Guytrac was informed that it needed to provide the critical performance bond.
After the contract was terminated, Guytrac took NPTAB to court.
The APNU+AFC administration thus inherited the court case.

Under the PPP/C government, NPTAB had its own lawyers, however, Attorney General Basil Williams took over the case.
This newspaper is in possession of copies of correspondence sent from the AG’s Chambers to Justice Diana Insanally, Guytrac’s lawyer, Abiola Wong-Inniss and President David Granger informing them of his decision to appear personally and conduct trial before Her Honour.
However, the AG never appeared in court for the matter.
This newspaper contacted the AG for a comment on why he never appeared. But Williams refused to speak to the issue and redirected the newspaper to the Solicitor General (SG) Kim Kyte.
Kaieteur News then learnt that it was former Deputy Solicitor General, Prithima Kissoon who represented the State on the matter which was lost.
Kissoon spoke to this newspaper. She said that despite Williams making all commitments to the President and Judge that he would have represented the State, he never made himself available. Kissoon said that Williams requested several adjournments from the court, lasting over one month. She said that after a few adjournments, Justice Insanally directed that the matter had to proceed.

“I had no choice but to represent the State…The trial commenced and concluded without the Attorney General ever appearing.”
Kissoon said that during trial, she was sure to bring to the court’s attention the customs documents which proved that the pieces of equipment were in Guyana before the contract was awarded to Guytrac. She said that the government had a strong case.
However, “I was not permitted to finish my conduct because I was sent on administrative leave and as a result, never saw the submissions in reply of Counsel, Abiola Wong Inniss, who appeared for the Plaintiff, Sugrim. After, I was prohibited by the Attorney General from conducting matters on behalf of the State and after being sent on administrative leave, the submissions in reply by the Plaintiff were served on the Attorney Generals Chambers.”
Kissoon said that she could not speak to what might have happened with the case after she left.
However, this newspaper learnt that judgment was handed down last year and the court ruled in favour of Guytrac. Guytrac was awarded just over $300M. The State then appealed the case. However, soon after, a settlement was reached and the appeal was withdrawn.

The settlement agreement is for $226M and Guytrac will transfer the equipment to NDIA. No public announcement of the settlement was made. It is still left for the AG’s Chambers to explain why it opted to settle.
When this newspaper spoke to Solicitor General Kyte, she did not offer a reason why the government decided to quash the appeal. However, she confirmed that the state lost the case and an appeal was indeed filed.
Wong-Innis, Guytrac’s lawyer, also refused to speak to the newspaper on the matter.

 

---

---