By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
Renward Wells has denied giving “an encouraging reply” to the $600-$650 million waste-to-energy proposal at the centre of the Letter of Intent (LOI) controversy, which caused his dismissal from the Government.
The Bamboo Town MP, in a November 7 defence to Stellar Energy’s allegations, said he was seeking to strike out the group’s “unfounded claims” against him through multiple legal technicalities.
He also argued that the claims relating to the LOI were “not actionable in law”, even if the document was found to be binding on the Government.
Mr Wells’s position, which has been obtained by Tribune Business, gives little clue as to why he signed the LOI, especially given that the Government’s separate defence to Stellar’s claims (see other Page 1B article) again accuses him of acting “ultra vires” and without authority.
He and his attorneys, the law firm of fellow MP, Gregory Moss, also give no indication of who may have instructed the former Ministry of Works parliamentary secretary to sign the fateful document with Stellar on July 4, 2014.
Both Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis, Mr Wells’s immediate boss at the Ministry of Works, and his permanent secretary, Colin Higgs, both denied any knowledge of the LOI or telling Mr Wells to sign it (see other Page 1B article).
Mr Higgs, in a November 8 affidavit to support the Government’s case, also reaffirmed that Mr Davis knew nothing of the earlier LOI version, dated June 30, 2014, which had the Deputy Prime Minister as the signatory.
With both Mr Wells and his former colleagues in both the Government and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) maintaining their veil of secrecy, Bahamians are no closer to the truth behind the mysterious LOI saga, which many believe is a ‘manufactured’ political controversy.
Tribune Business previously exclusively revealed that other Cabinet ministers knew of the LOI and the Government’s intent to sign it, given that Michael Halkitis, minister of state for finance, referred to the document in a letter he sent to the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) country head. The ‘Deputy Prime Minister’ LOI version was also purportedly attached to that letter.
However, virtually the only thing Mr Wells was prepared to admit to in his defence was that he signed the LOI on July 4, 2014 - something he could hardly deny given that the document bears his signature.
Otherwise, he denied “each and every” allegation made against himself in Stellar’s ‘statement of claim’, in particular refuting the group’s suggestion that he gave their waste-to-energy proposal his personal encouragement.
Pointing out that he was responding from memory, as he no longer had access to the Ministry of Works’ files, Mr Wells admitted to receiving a letter sent on Stellar’s behalf on December 6, 2013.
“The first defendant [Mr Wells] also admits to having responded to that letter in the normal manner to the effect that the letter was received, and that the proposal therein was under consideration by the Government,” the Bamboo Town MP’s defence said.
“The first defendant denies that his letter in response was ‘an encouraging reply’, as alleged by [Stellar], or that it was anything other than a standalone response to proposals which were made to the Government.”
Stellar, whose principals include Dr Fabrizio Zanaboni and Jean-Paul (JP) Michielsen, interpreted Mr Wells’s reply far more warmly.
The latter’s response, as previously revealed by Tribune Business, also prompted ex-Cabinet minister, Algernon Allen, to seek a $100,000 payment from Stellar for writing the December 6, 2013, letter in his capacity as the group’s legal adviser.
Meanwhile, Mr Wells also denied that the National Energy Task Force had “shortlisted” Stellar’s project for the Government’s approval consideration.
“The first defendant denies, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, that the project contained in the LOI had been ‘shortlisted’ or otherwise given any preferential treatment by the National Energy Task Force, which the first defendant chaired prior to in or about October 14, 2014, when his services as parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of Works and Urban Development were terminated,” Mr Wells’s defence alleged.
And, despite now being a member of the Opposition FNM, Mr Wells also backed the Government’s position that the LOI’s terms do not entitle Stellar “to compensation to be agreed” if the two sides did not agree a contract for the waste-to-energy plant following the completion of engineering feasibility studies.
Stellar is seeking $727.364 million in damages against Mr Wells, the Government, Mr Allen and his law firm, and businessman/accountant Frank Forbes and his Sigma Holdings entity, the latter duo having acted as ‘advisers’ to the project.
The group is also seeking declarations that the Government both “honour” the LOI contract and not award a waste-to-energy contract to any other company until damages are paid, on the grounds that it was the victim of fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation.
Stellar is alleging that because there was “no mutual consent” between itself and the Government “to terminate and release” the other from their obligations, the LOI remains in effect.
But, denying this was the case, Mr Wells said that even if it was binding, the LOI had “automatically terminated” on July 3, 2015. This was by virtue of its clause 8, which said the document was valid for just one year from its signing.
The Bamboo Town MP also alleged that the LOI “was not a contract”, but “merely a preliminary step” to Stellar potentially executing a power purchase agreement (PPA) with BEC, once the viability of the project - to be based at the New Providence landfill - was proven.
Mr Wells also argued that the LOI was “subject to numerous pre-conditions... which were never so fulfilled”, with Stellar also requiring National Economic Council (NEC) or Cabinet approval - something it never obtained.
The former parliamentary secretary also argued that Stellar’s claims against him were “prohibited” by law, specifically the Limitation Act’s 1995 section 12 and the Interpretation and General Clauses Act’s section 49.
The former requires that legal actions launched against any public officer in the execution of their duty be launched within 12 months of the act complained of - and the Stellar LOI controversy occurred more than two years ago.
The Interpretation and General Clauses Act’s section 49 also protects public officials from “personal liability in respect of anything done or suffered in good faith and without negligence” in the executing their duties.
However, this strand of Mr Wells’ defence may have been undermined by the Government’s defence, which alleges that he signed the LOI without proper authorisation.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID