The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An outspoken QC yesterday backed the Grand Bahama Port Authority’s (GBPA) bid to intervene in his challenge to the Government’s Hawksbill Creek Agreement review, adding that it should be at “the epicentre” of the dispute as Freeport’s largest investor.

The Port’s attorneys, Graham Thompson & Co, yesterday filed a motion with the Supreme Court asking for permission to either intervene or be heard this Friday during the substantive hearing on the Judicial Review challenge brought by the Callenders & Co duo, Fred Smith and Carey Leonard.

Tremors

Welcoming the GBPA’s move, Mr Smith told Tribune Business: “ That should send some tremors through Government. It means that the major investor in Freeport wants the opportunity to be heard on this issue.

“They are the major stakeholders in Freeport’s future. I don’t know what their evidence is; I don’t know what they intend to say, but I am so glad the Port Authority is seeking to join this conversation.”

The GBPA has been perceived by some in the private sector as reluctant by some to stand up for the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and its rights, and those of its licensees.

Echoing this theme yesterday, Mr Smith told this newspaper: “There is nothing worse than being disengaged from something the Port Authority should be at the epicentre of.

“I think it suggests the Port Authority is certainly taking it very seriously, and I’m looking forward to seeing what they say in the affidavit to support their application.

“They are an interested party, and I do hope the court allows them to intervene, as the Supreme Court rules provide.

Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes is due to rule today on the temporary injunction Order that the Callenders & Co duo are seeking.

This, if granted, would prevent the Prime Minister and his government from acting on the recommendations made over Freeport’s expiring tax incentives until the full case is heard and decided.

They also want an Order ‘staying’ 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 Government-appointed committee led by Dr Marcus Bethel.

Referring to the stakeholder meetings conducted by that committee, Mr Smith told Tribune Business: “The future of Freeport depends on the legitimacy of this consultation process, and the fact that they [the Port Authority] have chosen to intervene certainly means they are taking the challenge to that process seriously.”

Future

The Government’s failure to publish the report on Freeport’s future by McKinsey, the international consulting firm, is central to the Judicial Review action launched by the Callenders & Co duo.

They are alleging that the consultation process, on which the report by Dr Bethel’s committee is based, was “fundamentally flawed and a sham” because key documents - especially the McKinsey report - were not released to those it interviewed.

The McKinsey report is seen as especially important because previous statements by Prime Minister Perry Christie suggest it influenced the Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee’s terms of reference, while also playing a vital role in determining the Government’s thinking on Freeport’s short and long-term future.

Messrs Smith and Leonard are ultimately seeking Supreme Court Orders that prevent any decisions being made on the basis of the committee’s report; that require the McKinsey report to be made publicly available; and require that a new consultation process be undertaken with Freeport stakeholders.

Mr Smith yesterday said the Government’s secrecy surrounding the McKinsey report was “at the root” of the Judicial Review action.

“I don’t believe the Government has given a copy out. My understanding is that the Government has refused to give anyone a copy, which is insane,” he told Tribune Business.

“How can you set up a committee whose Terms of Reference are founded on the McKinsey report, invite stakeholders to participate in a consultation and refuse to share with them the findings of the consultation, which is the McKinsey report.”