Court rules against Novelo brothers in D.F.C. case
Throughout the public hearings on the Development Finance Corporation, the thirty million dollar loan to the Novelo group was a prominent topic of discussion. In February, the Novelo brothers, David and Tony, launched a campaign against the appointment of accountant Mark Hulse as the Commission of Inquiry’s forensic auditor. The Novelos maintained that Hulse’s previous professional relationship with the receiver appointed to run their bankrupt company constituted a conflict of interest. The brothers took their case to the Supreme Court and asked Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh to declare that Hulse was unlawfully appointed and therefore his report is also unlawful. Furthermore, the Novelos asserted that because they had not been interviewed by Hulse prior to his submission to the Commission, their natural rights had been breached. This afternoon the C.J. handed down his decision, ruling that Hulse was properly appointed and had lawful access to the financial documents of the D.F.C. But the Chief Justice opined that he did find the third declaration “troubling” and told the court that he was prepared to say that the Novelos were not treated fairly because they were not able to refute the findings of the auditor. However, the C.J. maintained that he was unable to rule that rights to natural justice had been breached as the forensic audit is only preliminary and it is up to the Commission to review it and make appropriate recommendations. Conteh also noted that he hoped that the Commission would afford the Novelos a chance to speak before the conclusion of its report and if the brothers chose to stay away, they only have themselves to blame. Following the decision, both sides claimed victory.
Lois Young Barrow, Attorney for Mark Hulse
“Good victory for Mark and a nice message for the Commission of Inquiry that the Chief Justice has said that the report, the final report is not in yet and that if the Novelos do not want to testify before the Commission of Inquiry then they can take the consequences of not doing so. So there were other things besides Mark’s issues involved and other statements were made.”
Janelle Chanona
“Does your client concede that maybe you should have asked the Novelos to put in their two cents in your investigation?”
Mark Hulse, Forensic Auditor
“Well as the Chief Justice said, perhaps maybe I should have done that. I still don’t think that my investigation of the D.F.C did not necessarily involve questioning a client of the D.F.C. Moreover the Commissioner as the Chief Justice said, have the last say. They are the ones who’ll do the questioning on what I report to them, it’s up to the Novelos to answer to the Commission.”
Elson Kaseke, Attorney for Novelos
“It’s just an attitude that if you don’t like it, take it as you come along. The Chief Justice pronounced clearly that natural justice is alive and it has to be observed. Much obliged.”
”The fundamental question then is whether you can be denied fairness in one forum and have to appeal to another forum to get fairness…whether that in itself is fair. So there are complex issues which we are raising as we go along and I think we are all going to see this thing progress and spiral maybe way out of hand.”
David Novelo, Lost Claim Against Forensic Auditor
“I would like to say that today we feel that the Novelo’s family got a victory in court. Yes, we did not get everything that we expected but one of the things that I think is encompass everything we’ve been saying all the while is that the Inquiry Commission, especially the Forensic Auditor did not behave professionally, did not give us the opportunity for us to ensure that we would take and deliver what was the facts. I think that’s one of the things that we got today in the ruling that the family was not given the opportunity to be interviewed yet there was information being placed out there, not only as draft reports but as you all know by now that the report is now sitting on the Prime Minister’s office.”
Janelle Chanona
“David, we’ve also heard though that you all refused the summons to go and appear before the Commission of Inquiry.”
David Novelo
“I think it is very important to make that correction today, myself and my legal counsel did appear to the Inquiry Commission. The first time I was summoned I went in. Ms Merlene Bailey said that they had run out of time, they asked me, subsequently tot hat they sent me about three different occasions summons and they had the time adjourned and the last time we appeared at the Inquiry Commission, we stated categorically that it was because of this forensic auditor Mr. Mark Hulse and the Inquiry Commission putting forth the position saying that the Novelo’s family had authority to bring a claim to the court that instead it should have been the receiver. It is for that reason now that the Novelo’s family has a problem in testifying because in order for us to testify, we require the receiver to give us a permission to testify on behalf of the company.”
Tony Novelo, Lost Claim Against Forensic Auditor
“What is beautiful is you can see the victory for the local people that one of the lawyers being annoyed saying “let’s not retry the case”. It’s victory for the people of Belize like us.”
Of note is that Lois Young-Barrow asked the court to order costs against the Novelos, but the C.J. ruled that each side bear its own legal fees because this case is not ordinary and given the nature of the matter the right to be heard before being condemned must be maintained.
