The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An outspoken QC expressed “disappointment” yesterday that his challenge to the Government’s Hawksbill Creek Agreement consultation had been delayed indefinitely, after the judge hearing the case recused herself.

Fred Smith, the Callenders & Co attorney and partner, warned that “the clocking is ticking” on the February 4, 2015, expiration of Freeport’s Business Licence and real property tax exemptions while the Judicial Review waits for another judge to hear the matter.

Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes recused herself from the case following objections from the Government, due to the fact she had previously worked for Graham, Thompson & Co in private practice - the same law firm that is representing the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) in this matter.

Justice Hanna-Weekes had sought submissions on whether she should recuse herself at a previous hearing.

While Mr Smith and fellow Callenders & Co attorney, Carey Leonard, as plaintiffs, and the GBPA, had no objections to Justice Hanna-Weekes hearing the case, Loren Klein, acting for the Attorney General’s Office, said he needed to take further instructions at that hearing.

“As a result of the Attorney General’s objection to Justice Hanna-Weekes sitting, she has recused herself and told the parties they need to find another judge,” Mr Smith said of the outcome of yesterday’s hearing.

“It is very disappointing that the Government has considered it appropriate to cause the judge to recuse herself. This is a matter that requires urgent attention.

“We were not successful in getting the injunction, and the clock is ticking.”

Justice Hanna-Weekes had previously refused the Callenders & Co duo’s application for a stay and temporary injunction, saying she found it “inappropriate to interfere in the decision making process of the Cabinet at this time”.

The temporary injunction would have prevented the Prime Minister and his administration from acting on the Government-appointed committee’s recommendations over Freeport’s expiring tax incentives until the full case is heard and decided.

They had also sought to ‘stay’ the “decision-making process regarding potential changes to the provisions of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, and the economic and fiscal governance of Freeport”, stemming from the report produced by the committee. Costs were also ordered against Messrs Smith and Leonard.

In the substantive Judicial Review case, they are ultimately seeking Supreme Court Orders that prevent any decisions being made on the basis of the committee’s report; that require the earlier report by international consultants, McKinsey, to be made publicly available; and require that a new consultation process be undertaken with Freeport stakeholders.