Contract Extension Should Have Been Put Out to Tender; Appeal Expected

Denys Barrow

The foundation on which government presented its argument and the subsequent decision taken by the court is that a binding agreement of that magnitude ought to have been put to tender.  Since there was never an offer made by a competing entity through a tender process, the court found it appropriate to cancel the contract.

Denys Barrow, S.C., Attorney for Government

“Essentially it was, I just skimmed the last three pages, essentially it was on the basis that a contract of this value was required by financial regulations which were a matter, which are a matter of law to go through the tender process and this contract was for tens of millions of dollars and it was awarded without any tender, without any opportunity for anybody else to offer their services to offer to perform the work at a lower price et cetera.  So, the court decided that the violation of the tender procedure was sufficient to make the contract not valid.”

Reporter

“Sir, in your mind, is this possibly a vindication of your government’s purposes for acquiring the companies registry in the first place?”

Denys Barrow

“It is a curious thing Daniel because people are looking at a situation where the government has to pay compensation, which is not the case here, but they look at a situation where government has to pay compensation as a bad, as indicating that there was a bad move on the part of government, overlooking entirely the fact that when government does acquire a property, does compulsorily acquire a property, it is doing something which governments legitimately are permitted to do.  Section Seventeen of the Constitution permits it.  Governments may legitimately be required, acting in the public interest to acquire a property, so that when the property is acquired the obligation to pay compensation is there.  So it is not that government loses when it is ordered to pay compensation.  You take away, the government takes away people’s property and they must pay compensation.  And when government is ordered, when the taxpayers are ordered to pay compensation we must remember that we have gotten the benefit of the property which was taken away.  Happily in this case, like I said, no compensation is to be paid.”

Reporter

“Sir, can the claimants appeal?”

Denys Barrow

“Oh, they can appeal and I absolutely expect that they will appeal.  If government had lost I’m certain that we would have appealed.  You can expect an appeal to take place.”