HOME

We advise that Asian Village Antigua Limited has filed a claim against the Government of Antigua and Barbuda for US$49,152,762.11 in respect of the failed Guiana Island Project. You will no doubt recall that on November 12 2003 your Cabinet approved the issue of a Notice of Default and Termination to the Company, it having failed to fulfill its obligations under the 1997 Agreement and time having revealed that the Company had “no known funding source willing and able to make the needed level of finance available …….. for the implementation of construction of the Asian Village Resort Project”.

From the enclosed copy of the Claim you will note that among other breaches alleged on the part of the Government, the Company claims the following:

(a) a failure from the very start of the Project to grant to the Claimant and to implement various important concessions rights, privileges and licences (paras. 18 (2),25, and 26);

(b) a failure by Government to achieve completion despite various extensions of the completion date, and repeatedly breached its obligations under the Agreement (paras. 14, and 15); and

(c) that there are many substantive differences between the Asian Village Antigua legislation and the provisions of the Agreement and further that the specially enacted legislation failed to meet the requirements of the Agreement (paras. 29 and 30).

Given your intimate knowledge of the on-going negotiations and communications (both oral and written) between the Government and the company over the years 1996 to early 2004, we request a statement from you clarifying the various issues raised in the claim of which you are knowledgeable. We had by letter dated June 19 2006 invited Sir James “Bags” Thomas to speak to us on the matter inasmuch as the various memoranda identify him as the Government’s point man on the project. Sir James opted to leave the island without responding to our invitation.

We draw particular reference to the negotiations which preceded the drawing up of a Deed of Settlement which you executed on behalf of Government on March 9 2004. Asian Village Antigua Limited does not appear to have signed the copy in our possession nor are we aware of any counterpart thereof being delivered with their signature. Your attention is drawn to clause 11 of the Deed which obliges the parties to “keep and maintain the terms of this Deed and their discussions and negotiations relating to the transactions described herein and such other matters as provided in this Deed in strict confidence …….”. That notwithstanding, we are of the view that the matter now being in arbitration mode, obliges you as the immediate past Prime Minister to speak to those very issues, particularly, the terms of the settlement and release, the waivers and undertakings, and the warrantees and representations which informed the document. A copy of the Deed is enclosed for your attention.

Oftentimes, as a matter of convenience we have heard the comment, that Government is continuous. On this occasion it is a reality. The interest of the State demands the harnessing of intelligence and evidence from both sides of the political divide in a joint effort to defend and defeat this claim by Asian Village Antigua Limited.

The Cabinet has been carefully considering in some detail the Report in respect of the Public Utilities Authority submitted by Mr. Don Mitchell CBE, QC, on December 14 2005 following his appointment as the sole investigator on November 21 2005. The Report addresses Mr. Mitchell's findings under the five terms of reference of the investigation and makes twelve recommendations following his interview of persons whom he invited to meet with him. The persons interviewed included the former APUA Commissioners, APUA General Manager Leon Chaku Symister and eight divisional managers, media persons, and members of Opposition parties. Of Government Ministers, only Hon. Wilmoth Daniel, Hon. Dr. Edmond Mansoor, and Senator Aziz Hadeed were extended invitations and duly attended on the investigator.

The Government of Antigua and Barbuda wishes to publicly record its thanks to Mr. Don Mitchell for his ready acceptance of the assignment to conduct the investigation and the timely submission of his Report.

On its preliminary review, the Cabinet accepts in principle certain of the recommendations which it considers to be in the interest of the good governance of APUA and of general application to other statutory authorities and their adoption of best business and management practices. The suggestion that workshops and seminars be held from time to time to reinforce proper procedure and good corporate governance is of eminent importance as this Administration seeks to arrest two decades of general decline in the public service and to establish and encourage high standards of performance among public officers.

The Cabinet however, has some difficulty with some of the recommendations in light of the apparently unsupported findings on which these recommendations are based, particularly where both the findings and the recommendations appear to fall outside the scope of the terms of reference of the investigation. Similarly, the Cabinet has found inconsistencies and conflicting statements in the findings of the investigator which necessitate further examination and assessment and which may be the subject of qualified comment by the Cabinet on completion of its review.

It will be recalled that the Cabinet had at its weekly meeting held on Friday November 4, 2005 resolved to terminate the appointments of the APUA Commissioners having considered the growing controversy which surrounded the operations of APUA and its adverse effect on the continued good governance of APUA and had further resolved that it was in the national interest to mount an investigation into the matters relating to the controversy. The Cabinet, therefore views with dismay and concern the investigator's finding that the decision to terminate the appointment of the Commissioners had given rise to a "widely-voiced suspicion that pressure was brought to bear to have the Commissioners dismissed in order to ensure that the APUA funding investigation did not continue". This viewpoint is absolutely without foundation since the Cabinet had never been advised that a forensic audit or a formal investigation had been launched or was being conducted by the APUA Commissioners. The Cabinet recognises the legal authority of any statutory authority to independently launch an investigation on any aspect of its operations and/or management where the authority considers it desirable, and the Government has no intention of discontinuing any investigation into

As it continues with its in-depth review of the Report, the Cabinet has determined to issue this general overview pending its detailed response which will be released to the public along with the Report shortly.

HMB Holdings Limited through its Director Mrs. Natalia Querard has filed an application to the Registrar of Lands on December 13 2005.

The application requests the Registrar to obtain an Opinion from the High Court as to whether the Registrar was correct in registering the Crown as the proprietor of the Half Moon Bay Hotel properties on the application of the Attorney General made by Minute dated April 1

(1) That the Attorney General's Minute does not constitute a formal application; and

(2) That the undertaking given by the Government and filed in the High Court on March 16 2002 "to refrain from entering taking possession of or any way entering and/or disposing of (the Half Moon Bay lands) " remains effective until the final determination of the matter by the Privy Council.

It is noteworthy to mention that the Government has never received from the Company a response to the Parliamentary Resolution passed in the House of Representatives on the 18th day of July 2005. The Resolution, which was to be accepted within 3 months, was in terms that Government would re-vest the compulsorily acquired lands in HMB Holdings Ltd. on the following conditions:

1) That the appeal filed in the Privy Council by HMB Holdings Ltd. be withdrawn with no order as to costs;

Instead, the Company sought to have Government agree to refer the issue of the acquisition and the unconditional return of the hotel property to arbitration, even in the face of the Parliamentary Resolution.

On December 8 2000 the Company obtained an ex-parte injunction against Cabinet restraining the Cabinet from compulsorily acquiring the Company's lands; the injunction was set aside on January 12 2001. Subsequently on February 12 2001, Government agreed not to proceed with the acquisition for a period of 6 months commencing from February 1 2001.

On the Company's failure to rebuild, refurbish, or redevelop the hotel which had been severely damaged by Hurricane Luis in September 1995),

Government proceeded on February 12 2002 by Parliamentary Resolution to compulsorily acquire the property. The Declaration of Acquisition was published in the Gazette on March 7th and 14th 2002 in accordance with section 3 of the Land acquisition Act, Cap. 233 which provides that “Upon the second publication of the declaration in the Gazette as aforesaid the land shall vest absolutely in the Crown . . .”

On March 16 2002 (two days after the second publication), the Company filed a challenge to the acquisition in the High Court and obtained the undertaking mentioned above pending the full hearing of the matter. The Company was successful before the High Court whose decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on January 28 2003. The Company obtained leave on September 16 2003 to appeal to the Privy Council; the Record of Appeal is yet to be filed by the Company and the matter has not been heard.

It is my view that following the decision of the Court of Appeal, Government had every right to register the property in the Crown particularly as it had complied with the legal requirement of two publications, a position specifically noted by the Court of Appeal. An appeal does not operate as a stay of a decision of the court below, and none was applied for by the Company. By letter dated May 10 2005, I had occasion to inform Mrs Querard (the Company's Managing Director who controls a 56% beneficial interest), of this Administration's intention of re-vesting the property in the Company on her acceptance of the first two conditions outlined above; there was no response. I had advised further:

“Whilst we recognize your fiduciary duty to your shareholders, the government too has a fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers of this country, some of whom continue after almost ten years to await their acknowledged severance payments from your company. The act of eminent domain is a right exercised by every sovereign State. This administration is seeking to stand by its principles and act on its promise, but this must not be misconstrued to mean at whatever cost to the people of this country. . . ."

The Government has every intention of defending its position and the action it has to date taken in vesting title of the hotel property in the Crown. We are also acutely conscious of the fact that the beneficial owner of 44% of the Company's equity has for some time been effectively deprived of all management rights and that the business of the Company appears to be conducted in a manner which effectively denies all proper participation by that substantial owner. (Ends)

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS,

A PLEASANT AFTERNOON TO YOU, AND THANKS FOR ATTENDING THIS PRESS CONFERENCE.

LAST WEEK, ALONG WITH OTHER CARICOM ATTORNEYS GENERAL, I ATTENDED A CARICOM LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING IN SURINAME .

AMONG THE MATTERS DISCUSSED WERE A NEWLY DRAFTED CHARTER OF CIVIL SOCIETY FOR THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY, DRAFT ICC WORLD CUP
2007 LEGISLATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY THE VENUE TERRITORIES , AND THE RECENT PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT FROM JAMAICA AND ITS
EFFECT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

*** THE CHARTER OF CIVIL SOCIETY EMANATES FROM A DECISION BY WAY OF RESOLUTION TAKEN BY THE HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF CARICOM AT
THEIR MEETING IN ST. JOHN'S, ANTIGUA ON FEBRUARY 19 1997 THEREBY GIVING EFFECT TO ONE OF THE STRONGEST RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
WEST INDIAN COMMISSION AS CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT 'TIME FOR ACTION'.

THE CHARTER DECLARES GOVERNMENT'S COMMITTMENT TO RESPECT
AND STRENGTHEN THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF CIVIL SOCIETY SUCH AS FREE PRESS FAIR AND OPEN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, MORALITY IN
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS, ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS, GOOD GOVERNANCE, AND
RESPECT FOR FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS.

*** THE ICC WORLD CUP 2007 LEGISLATION WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LEGAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION
AND OPERATIONS OF WORLD CUP CRICKET HERE IN THE WEST INDIES, AND WILL ADDRESS AREAS SUCH AS SECURITY, CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION
TAXATION, COPYRIGHT AND TRADE MARK PROTECTION, EVENT MANAGEMENT, AND FINANCIAL/COMMERCIAL SECURITY BY THE VARIOUS VENUE TERRITORIES. THIS IS GOING TO BE A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING WITH MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE INCLUDING 16 TEAMS IN 10 VENUES IN 9 COUNTRIES.
AND THE ORGANISATION IN ALL ITS DIFFERENT FACETS MUST BEGIN IN EARNEST NOW. IT IS EXPECTED THAT FOLLOWING REVIEW BY THE
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES, THE LEGISLATION WILL BE PASSED BY JUNE 2005.

*** IN RESPECT OF THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (CCJ), THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE APPEAL BY MEMBERS OF CIVIL
SOCIETY IN JAMAICA WAS WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN ENACTING THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CCJ, WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. IT WAS CONCEDED THAT THERE COULD BE NO OBJECTION TO LEGISLATION PROPERLY PASSED SIMPLY ABOLISHING THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THAT THE PARLIAMENT OF JAMAICA COULD VALIDLY HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE CCJ TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL AS THE FINAL COURT OF APPEAL FROM THE COURTS IN JAMAICA.

IT WAS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE CCJ SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF AN ENTRENCHED PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION, SO THAT THE CCJ WOULD ENJOY THE PROTECTION ACCORDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE
OTHER COURTS IN JAMAICA . HERE IN ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , ESTABLISHING THE CCJ IN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NECESSITATE ENTRENCHMENT BY WAY OF A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF PARLIAMENTARY SEATS AND A REFERENDUM WITH A TWO-THIRD'S MAJORITY. THAT MUCH IS CLEAR.

WHAT THE JUDGMENT DOES IS TO QUESTION WHETHER THE CCJ IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SHOULD ALSO BE ENTRENCHED GIVEN THE FACT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE COURT WILL ONLY BE ADJUDICATING ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE DOMESTIC COURTS CAN REFER SUCH MATTERS
TO IT FOR DETERMINATION. CARICOM IS NEVERTHELESS COMMITTED TO THE INAUGURATION OF THE CCJ IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION BY APRIL
THIS YEAR TO ALLOW FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CSME, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY EXAMINING POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING
LAW TO FORESTALL ANY POSSIBLE LEGAL CHALLENGE.

THE FULL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CCJ MUST BE PEOPLE DRIVEN. TO THIS END I INTEND MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S OPPOSITION,
THE EXECUTIVE OF THE ANTIGUA & BARBUDA BAR ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR, AND THE TRADE UNION
CONGRESS TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE IN FULL AND THE WAY FORWARD AS WE SEE IT.

THANK YOU.

In the wee hours of last Tuesday morning when our world was left to darkness and to slumber, the Hitachi centre situated on Market Street in the city of St. John’s was bombed in an explosion which was heard as far away as Golden Grove.

The nature of that criminal act and its implications make it imperative that I, as Attorney General, issue a press statement.

The explosive device used, from initial police investigation and report, contained 3” concrete nails which were subsequently found embedded in the concrete walls of the adjacent building and business premises. In the store immediately west of an across the street from the Hitachi Centre some of these concrete nails penetrated the glass showcase window and the entrance glass door and could be seen lying on the floor of the store. It appears that the device was planted within the external expanding metal door and was set off by a timing device which shattered the entrance glass door, damaged parts of the metal door, shook off the ceiling of the overhang and caused extensive damage to the interior of the electronics outlet which has been a household name in Antigua and Barbuda for decades. The Hitachi Building also housed Dr. Edmond Mansoor’s clinic on its top floor.

The Commissioner of Police has indicated that the type of explosive device used was novel to Antigua and Barbuda . Given the fact that 3” concrete nails were used in the device, and given the fact that these nails were, subsequent to the explosion, found within the store premises on the opposite side of the street. Consider the possible injury to passer-by’s travelling on a street which is a main artery into and out of the city of St. John’s whether by day or night. Consider too, the possibility of a faulty timing device which may well have delayed the explosion to a time when activities in preparations for the day ahead to begin in earnest. There is too, the grim possibility that the device may have exploded prematurely and that it may well have been timed to explode much later with consequential serious injury or even fatalities.

A heinous criminal act was, that morning, perpetrated on the city of St. John’s , a city in which visitors from our tourist ships would be shopping and sightseeing that very day. Clearly, it was a heinous criminal act perpetrated on the citizenry of Antigua and Barbuda .

But, in a more direct way, it was an intentional calculated criminal act against the Mansoor family and in particular the recently appointed Minister of Information and broadcasting, Dr. Edmond Mansoor. To think otherwise would be naïve and foolish.

Since the historic victory of the United Progressive Party Government on March 23, 2004, there has undoubtedly been an unrelenting vilification by certain sections of the electronic media, against Hon. Dr. Edmond Mansoor and his family. This much is clear. There has definitely been a progressive incitement to “race hate” and violence even at a time when the world soberly commemorates the 60^th anniversary of the liberation of the survivors of the Holocaust with a message of tolerance, peace and love.

We must condemn that insightful behaviour, and call on radio programme directors and media hosts to categorically disavow, without equivocation, all such behaviour whether expressed or implied. It is not enough to simply state, after the fact, that one “deplores any act of violence.” One must also critically examine ones past conduct and at least ask: “did I incite, influence or motivate such a senseless deplorable act of criminality?” Can we properly continue to exercise our constitutional right to disseminate information and ideas without interference to the public in total disregard of the reputation, rights, freedom, and safety of other persons which are also guaranteed by the Constitution?

Fellow citizens, we cannot appear to go down the road of the 1970’s. It is not without some significance that then as now the Antigua Labour Party was in opposition and that then as now ZDK was in their total and manipulative control.

The incitement to “race hate” has no place in Antigua and Barbuda . It is destructive of our people and detrimental to our tourist industry and investment climate. One of the primary obligations of government is the safety of its citizens. Government is committed to preventing any state of anarchy developing in this country. To this end, we have instructed our national security forces to act decisively, taking into account all relevant and surrounding circumstances. I have every confidence that the Police will seek during their investigation to question all those whose words and actions could be linked to this criminal act.

Let us as citizens of Antigua and Barbuda recommit ourselves to the democratic process. Let us at all times be measured in our behaviour when we exercise the right to criticise. And let our actions speak louder than our words as we united in deploring all acts of violence, lest our society be rent asunder.

Statement by

Hon. Attorney General

Newspaper Article

Yesterday's (January 24, 2004) front page headline in ' The Sun' newspaper and the following lead story by Marabel Jacobs is inaccurate in content and mischievous in intent.

To state that the Director of Prosecutions was asked to vacate his office and find new quarters is furthest from the truth. To suggest that such an order was given because government ministers are at odds with his pronouncement on the missing files is certainly malicious; and when that story is given such prominence by 'The Sun’ one is forced to ask: Just what is their agenda?

The Office of the DPP falls under the portfolio of the Ministry of Legal Affairs which I head. That Office with its administrative staff and legal officers occupies the eastern section of the northern wing of the building which houses the Ministry, with the DPP himself occupying the western executive office while the MBS Investigating Team occupied the eastern executive office.

The DPP is simply being shifted to the eastern executive office (which the MBS Team is vacating) to allow the Minister of Justice the Hon. Colin Derrick to occupy the western executive office. This move will allow the Minister of Justice and his administrative staff to occupy the entire western part of the north wing, with the DPP and his staff occupying the entire eastern part thereby creating a clear line of demarcation and separation between the two offices which will be reinforced by a partition running between the entire length of the two sections.

In respect of Pestaina's tenure which was also adversely commented on in the front page article, let me state that Mr. Pestaina's substantive appointment which commenced in August 2004 is that of Senior Crown Counsel. From that post he was then appointed to act as Director of Public Prosecutions for an initial period of five (5) months ending December 31 2004. His appointment has since been extended and the application to do so was made to Mr. Pestaina's knowledge before his interview with The Sun last December. Both of these acting appointments were made by the OECS Judicial and Legal Services Commission based in St. Lucia on the recommendation of the Ministry.

Mr. Cumberbatch's tenure as DPP on the other hand was on a yearly contract during his last three years in the post with a question mark over any involvement of the Commission. So, let's not play hypocrisy here.

And to suggest that Mr. Pestaina is stymied and cannot do any major cases is ridiculous. What has he been doing in the last and this current Assizes in clearing up the backlog of serious indictments including four (4) murders, forgery, and conspiracy to defraud charges, as well as appearing before the Court of Appeal in its November sitting?

This is not the first time that The Sun has sought to impugn the bona fides and integrity of the Ministry of Legal Affairs. I can no longer remain silent.

In a front page article by Andy Liburd published on December 31 2004, Liburd wrote that the "Young attorney Adlai Smith, after only around three months as a prosecutor having done most of his work as a defence lawyer," has been assigned the case of the missing files "and is expected to come up with charges" in the absence of the DPP who was then in Dominica for Christmas. He further opined, " . . .As Smith prepares to direct and advise the investigation, speculation mounts as to what will be the DPP's role in the matter". And further, that there had been a hasty meeting of the entire missing files investigating team in the Ministry of Legal Affairs.

When I contacted him and challenged the veracity of his statements, he replied that he was informed by sources who had proved reliable in the past. I drew the matter to the attention of the Editor, Pat Henry.

This kind of reporting smacks of journalism at its worst and, somewhere, somebody has an agenda to distort truth and mislead an anxious public, more so to bring the administration of justice in Antigua and Barbuda in disrepute. Truth must at all times be the hallmark of professional journalists, with freedom always to make comment on matters of public interest. Anything short is a disservice to the community.

Justin L. Simon, QC

Attorney General &

Minister of Legal Affairs.

January 25 2005.

Some three and half months ago, I addressed you on the controversy surrounding the Guiana Island Development Project and informed you of Government’s appointment of a legal team to review the Agreement, the relevant legislation, and all correspondence touching and concerning the project for the purpose of determining Government’s legal position particularly in relation to the ownership of the lands now vested in Asian Village Antigua Limited. I can now advise that on Monday August 16 2004 legal proceedings were commenced by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda against the two companies:

seeking declarations that the lands or any interest in land held by these two companies, whether as parties to the Agreement, or as registered proprietors with title, or as leasehold proprietors, be forfeited to the Crown and revert to the Government of Antigua and Barbuda for and on behalf of the people.

The Tortola company was registered on the instructions of Lim Say Chong and Dato Tan Kay Hock as an international business company in February 1997 and is therefore a foreign or non-citizen company doing business in Antigua and Barbuda.

The Antigua and Barbuda company was incorporated in December 1996 with NG YEW SOON and Ian M.J. Peacooke both of Malaysia as its Shareholders thus making it a foreign or non-citizen company in light of the fact that the shareholders and directors are not citizens of Antigua and Barbuda.

At the next sitting of Parliament, I will be piloting a Bill to repeal two pieces of legislation and a statutory provision which were enacted by the Lester Bird Administration for the sole purpose of implementing the numerous incentives which the Government had given in its Agreement with Asian Village Antigua Limited the Tortola company and dated the 18^th day of February, 1997.

- and the statutory provision is Section 3 of The Law Revision (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Act 1998.

These actions are being taken pursuant to the advice received from our legal team who delivered their Opinion to me on July 5 2004.

You will no doubt recall that in early 1997 the Hon. Prime Minister then leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition instituted two legal actions in which he asked the High Court to set aside the Asian Village Agreement on the grounds that the Agreement was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable against the people of Antigua and Barbuda as it represented a sell-out on the part of the Government.

Both actions were dismissed. The subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. The matter was fully argued by heavyweights in the legal field: Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye Q.C., and Mr. Cosmos Phillips Q.C. (now deceased) argued on behalf of Hon. Baldwin Spencer. The Government was represented by Mr. Turner-Samuels Q.C. of England, Mr. Karl Hudson-Phillips Q.C. of Trinidad and Tobago and Mr. Anthony Astaphan (later to become S.C.) of the Commonwealth of Dominica.

The concluding words in the judgment of the High Court Judge, Justice Adrian Saunders as he then was, and who is now a judge of the Court of Appeal and currently the acting Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court is worth recalling. This is what the learned judge said on November 21 1997:

“The Guiana Island project will certainly have a great impact on Antigua and Barbuda and its people. Mr. Spencer and the members of his party have left this court in no doubt as to how they feel about the project. I do not doubt that their opposition to the Agreement is motivated by sincere and well-meaning aims. I suspect though that for each argument they can make against the project, the Government and its supporters can put forward an equally cogent one in defence of the project. Essentially, I get the impression that the fundamental objection goes towards the scale of the concessions granted to Asian Village Antigua Limited. Has the Government given away too much? Would the project ultimately vindicate the wisdom of the bargain struck by the Government?

This court does not and cannot adjudicate upon such disputes. These are political issues. They are best left up to the Parliament and the people of Antigua and Barbuda for resolution in other for a by lawful means.”

Pursuant to the agreement, Asian Village Antigua, Ltd. (the Tortola company), became the owner of 6 parcels of land including Guiana Island and constituting in the aggregate 1,541 acres transferred by Government for the sum of EC $2,700,000.00 on April 24 1998. Government had compulsively acquired those lands in August 1997, having agreed to pay the sum of EC $27,000,000.00 for Guiana Island only; that sum is yet to be paid to the company which owned the island and is now a judgement sum attracting interest at 5% per annum, and forms part of our huge national debt.

Additionally, Asian Village Antigua Ltd. purchased from a private company in an arms length transaction, a parcel of land on the mainland, adjoining Guiana Island consisting of approximately 36 acres for the sum of US $680,000.00 equivalent to EC $1,836,000.00. I say this to give you an idea of the gross undervalue at which Government sold 1,541 acres of prime development land and to set the stage for the legal findings of our team of eminent counsel.

Asian Village Antigua Ltd. also obtained from Government 99 -year leases in respect of 8 other parcels of land with an aggregate acreage of approximately 9½ acres at the annual peppercorn rent of US $100.00 for each parcel.

That land transaction involving the acquisition of Crown lands was unprecedented in Antigua and Barbuda’s history, though it may now well be rivaled by only one other person - again under the Lester Bird’s administration.

The public purpose of the Guiana Island project is reflected in the object of the Agreement which states that:

“Government and the company recognise and acknowledge that the project may constitute the largest infrastructure development of Antigua and Barbuda and the concessions to be granted form a necessary and integral component of the Project and the parties hereto will assist each other and do all things as may be reasonably necessary to ensure the success of the Project.”

The public purpose nature of the Agreement was accepted and acknowledged by both parties. In a letter dated October 14 1999, to then Prime Minister Lester Bird, Lim Say Chong wrote:

“Prime Minister, you have placed a heavy burden on our shoulders by relying almost totally on us for your country’s near and medium term development.”

“The reality is that such a responsibility was assumed by your company when you required the significant concessions and incentives that you were accorded.”

It is common knowledge that every contract or agreement must state a consideration or cost to be paid by the party obtaining the benefit of the contract. The consideration may be expressed in money as in the transfer of land or on the obtaining of an employee’s services in an employment contract. It may alternatively be expressed in kind as in a case where two people do an exchange of land or where a fishing boat is lent in return for a part of the day’s catch.

The Asian Village Agreement’s consideration was not merely a monetary one, and was uniquely and particularly expressed thus:

“In consideration of the payment by the Company of the sum of EC $15,500,000.00 and the development of the project, the Government undertook that it would sell, transfer, or lease (as the case may be) the listed parcels of land, and grant to the company the various concessions, rights, privileges, and licences as stipulated.

“In return the company undertook to purchase and accept the transfers or leases, and the concessions, rights, privileges, and licences paying therefore the total purchase price of EC $15,500,000.00 as well as the cost of the Project design and would secure the financing and the construction and management of the Project in accordance with the Company’s plan.”

The $15,500,000.00 was to be paid by five installments of $2,700,000.00 each, the first of which being due on the date of completion described as the date when the lands were transferred and the legislation passed granting the proposed concessions, rights, privileges, and licences; the second to be paid 24 months after the completion date; the third, 36 months after that date;

the fourth, on the expiry of 48 months; and the fifth, 60 months after the date of completion.

- to obtain all the finance necessary to design, construct, operate, manage and maintain the Project;

- to ensure that all construction was carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner;

- to build or substantially build the first phase consisting of a resort project of not less than 250 rooms, a casino, and a golf course within 24 months of the completion date;

- the 250 rooms to be completed so as to be in a position to receive its first guest by Christmas 1998.

The “completion date” had initially been fixed as July 30 1997 or any extension thereof granted by the Company. The legislation was enacted by March 27 1998; the ground-breaking ceremony took place on April 24 1998; the first payment was made on April 27 1998; and the land transfers were effected by May 13 1998. The stage had been set. Indeed, by letter dated October 14 1999, then Ambassador James “Bags” Thomas in expressing Government’s frustration to the Company wrote, inter alia.

“This (Ground-breaking) ceremony was attended by no less a person than Dato Tan, who during the ceremony declared, among other things, that work would immediately commence on the project site. Indeed at the end of the ceremony, work was started and was discontinued or abandoned. In the view of the Government of Antigua and Barbuda the performance by the parties of their obligations constitutes sufficient evidence of completion.”

There is an abundance of correspondence between the Government and the Company which discloses that the Company has defaulted in its obligations as follows:

(3) failure to obtain all or any of the finance necessary for the design , construction, operation and management of the Project; and

The correspondence further discloses that the reason why construction never commenced was due to the financial incapacity of the company and its inability to raise the necessary funds in the financial markets. Letters written during the period July 2000 to May 2001 show the Company trawling from US bank to Arab bank unsuccessfully in search of financing, and in January 2002 Government takes on the lead role of finding financing for the Company in its desperate attempt to salvage the project. By Memorandum dated November 13 2002, Dato Tan signifies his unwillingness to go forward with the project unless there is procurement of other capital sources which the Government in a last attempt unsuccessfully seeks from the Chinese in June 2003. Further exchange of correspondence brought no hope.

On November 12 2003 Cabinet finally accepted that Asian Village Antigua Ltd. had no known source of funding, and took the decision to serve Notice of Default on the Company. The Notice was given that very day under the hand of the then Prime Minister Lester Bird. Cabinet also decided to re-acquire the land which the Crown transferred to the Company and to terminate the leases by re-entering on the leased parcels.

Dato Tan Hock’s lawyers responded with two letters dated December 8 and December 19 2003 rejecting any breach by the company and claiming that Government had failed to live up to its obligations in that a completion date had not yet been reached. Please understand the enormity of that allegation: That almost 7 years after the Agreement was signed, Dato Tan was now claiming that Government had not passed the necessary legislation or transferred the required lands. Lester Bird then did an about turn; well, almost an about turn. His subsequent letter of January 5 2004 to Dato Tan lawyers is instructive and I shall read it in full:

The Government of Antigua and Barbuda does not agree with your allegations that Asian Village Antigua Limited is not in breach of the Agreement.

However in light of the fact that your client Dato Tan Kay Hock has represented to me verbally that Mr. Allen Stanford has concluded with him a firm offer of purchase for the Guiana Island, surrounding properties and other properties, this letter serves to inform you that upon consideration of these prevailing factors the Government without prejudice to its position as to the breach alleged, hereby agrees to the request of Asian Village Antigua Limited as outlined in your letter of 8^th December 2003 to withdraw the Notice of Default and Termination.

The Government looks forward to meeting with Asian Village Limited within fourteen days to discuss the sale of the said properties.”

Eminent Counsel in their 53 page Legal Opinion have, on a consideration of all the facts and the intervening circumstances, advised this Administration that Asian Village Antigua Ltd. is in breach of the Agreement in so fundamental a manner that we can reclaim title to the lands which were transferred and re-possession of the leased lands. Additionally and importantly neither of the companies (they being foreign companies) applied for or obtained a licence to hold the lands as is required under the Non-Citizens Land Holding Regulations Act. Whether by default or good fortune, neither the Agreement nor the Incentive legislation provided exemption from the provisions of that Act.

The legal proceedings filed on Monday claim that Asian Village Antigua ltd. holds the lands as an unlicensed foreign company as a consequence of which the lands stand forfeited to the Crown pursuant to section 5 of the Non-Citizens Land Holding Regulation Act at the suit of the Attorney General. We have excercised that option in preference to seeking remedies for breach of contract because the Agreement provides that “all disputes, controversies, claims, or differences arising out of or relating to the Agreement” should be referred to arbitration by the London International Chamber of Commerce for a hearing in London and in accordance with the laws of England. On an action for breach of contract, the Company would have the right to apply for a stay of such court proceedings until the dispute is heard by the appointed arbitrators. In the interest of both time and cost, forfeiture proceedings are the better alternative, and we have filed accordingly.

Finally, I must needs say that my Government is acutely conscious of the need to expand our tourism product and hence is prepared to give due consideration to any touristic development of that area. But we will not enter into any such negotiations unless and until title to these lands are in our hands as the legal and rightful owners for and on behalf of the people of Antigua and Barbuda.

We are conscious too, of our obligation to satisfy the various judgement debts entered against the previous Administration and related to the failed project:

- To Guiana Island Farms Ltd., beneficially owned by the Fuller family: EC $27,062,268.00 and climbing from November 2002 at 5% per annum for the compulsory acquisition of its lands by Government.

- To Lona Eileen Bufton: EC $421,000.00 as damages for false imprisonment by the Police High Command on the instructions of the Bird Regime to forcibly remove her from Guiana Island; and

- To Cyril and Eileen Bufton: EC$2,024,000.00 as damages for loss of their lease, their home, personal effects, animals, and their way of life. In fact, compensation for their leasehold interest should properly be included in the compensation amount agreed for payment to Guiana Island Farms Ltd.

This Administration has inherited these debts, and as a responsible Government accepts its obligation to pay. The Lester Bird Administration left office without putting in place any arrangements for retiring any of the judgment debts, and nothing was done then to enforce them. Proverbially, we have been left to hold the bag. The Ministry of Finance is seeking to address these financial obligations in our Budgetary Estimates for the financial year 2005. We therefore implore the understanding and patience of our judgement debtors and their attorneys, unless of course you seek to bring this Administration to its financial knees for a cause it vehemently opposed and a burden it has regrettably inherited from the grandiose recklessness of the Lester Bird Administration.

Citizens and Residents of Antigua and Barbuda.

There is much controversy surrounding the Guiana Island development project and ASIAN VILLAGE ANTIGUA LIMITED since the Agreement between Asian Village Antigua Ltd. and the Government of Antigua and Barbuda was signed on February 18 1997.

Despite Government’s compulsory acquisition of some of the lands and its subsequent transfer of these lands constituting 1541 acres and 6 Islands to Asian Village Antigua Ltd. in consideration of the sum of EC$2,700,000.00, the company has to date failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement. Among other things,

· having paid $2,044,744.40 on May 18 1998, the company has failed to pay the balance;

· the company has failed to obtain the necessary financing to construct operate mange and maintain the project;

· the company has failed to perform the first phase of building a resort project of not less than 250 rooms, a casino and a golf course;

Firstly, a judgment was on the 4^th day of November 2002 entered against the Government in the High Court on its failure to defend an action brought by Guiana Island Farms Ltd. in respect of compensation on Government’s compulsory acquisition of Guiana Island and the neighbouring islands. The judgment was for the sum of EC$27,062,268.00 which is yet to be satisfied.

Secondly, on March 16 2004, a Caution was registered in the Land Registry against the 6 parcels of land constituting the Islands by Guiana Island Farms Ltd. forbidding the registration of any dealing with the properties. Additionally, a number of matters have occurred touching and concerning the lands:

In December 2000, Lona Eileen Bufton brought a High Court action against the Government and the Police High Command for damages for her false imprisonment. In her claim, she alleged that she had been physically removed from Guiana Island by 12 police officers on the false pretense that her husband had been shot and mortally wounded and held under police custody until March 15 1998 at a residence in Red Hill, St. Paul.

The Government’s defence was struck out as disclosing no reasonable defence and damages were on May 28 2003 assessed at $421,000.00

In December 2000, Cyril & Eileen Bufton brought an action against the Government claiming a declaration that the acquisition of their leasehold interest in 5 acres of land at Guiana Island for a period of 99 years from August 1970 was unconstitutional.

Government’s defence was again struck out and on April 20 2004, the Buftons were awarded the sum of $2,024,000.00 in damages for loss of their leasehold interest, their home, their personal effects and animals, their way of life, and for breach of their constitutional rights; with interest on the said sum at 4% p.a. from December 17 1997.

By letter dated November 12 2003, Lester Bird, the former Prime Minister, gave notice to Asian Village Antigua Ltd. of their continued default and required the company to remedy the breaches within 60 days, failing which the Agreement would be terminated. A Caution on behalf of Government was registered against the lands on November 18 2003.

Following receipt of two letters dated December 8 2003 and December 19 2003 from the company’s lawyers, Lester Bird by letter dated January 5 2004, withdrew the Notice of Default and Termination but without prejudice to Government’s position as to the alleged breaches complained of in his earlier letter. On March 8 2004, Government took steps to remove the Caution which they had placed on the titles in November 2003.

In view of these various judgment claims, the non-payment by Asian Village Antigua Limited of the balance of the trifling purchase price, the failure of the company to fulfill its obligations under the 1997 Agreement, and the legal question as to lawful ownership of the Islands in these unfolding circumstances/scenarios, this Government has decided on the following course of action:

(1) We have filed a caution over all the lands registered in the name of Asian Village Antigua Ltd. whether held by the company as registered proprietor or leasehold proprietor. This was done today and effectively prevents any dealings with these lands without Government’s knowledge and consent.

(2) We have appointed a team of legal experts in the persons of Ms. Bernice Lake Q.C., Gerald Watt Esq. Q.C., and Franklyn Clarke Esq., all senior practitioners at the Antigua and Barbuda Bar to review the legislation and all documents including letters exchanged between the former Government and Dato Tan relating to the Asian Village project for report to the Government on the legal implications and Government’s legal position in relation to the ownership of these lands.

It follows therefore that the Government is not now in a position to enter into any negotiations for the transfer and/or development of these lands.

In keeping with this Government’s principled position on transparency and accountability, it is my intention to prepare a full brief for publication to the Antigua and Barbuda people within a matter of days.