Erwin Contreras is Sued by Waterloo for Ten Million Dollars

Erwin Contreras

Former Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade Erwin Contreras is headed to court in a ten million dollar lawsuit filed against him by Waterloo Investment Holdings Limited, Belize Cruise Development Limited, and Belize Logistics Terminal Limited.  This is in respect of general, special and exemplary damages for misfeasance in public office arising from Contreras’ unlawful and secret signing of the Definitive Agreement between Portico Enterprise Limited and the Government of Belize in October 2020.  Altogether, the claimants are the intended developers of a cruise and cargo expansion project at the Port of Belize Limited.  They claim that in the absence of any approval from Cabinet or the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Contreras acted without lawful authority when he signed the Definitive Agreement.  In doing so, he unilaterally granted tax and several concessions to Port of Magical Belize and bound the Government of Belize to unparalleled commitments that were well beyond the power and purview of any single minister, and even the Cabinet.  The trio of claimants seeks special damages under the category of developmental costs in the sum of ten million dollars.  In relation to general damages, including but not confined to loss of opportunity costs, Waterloo and the other companies say they lost the support of Royal Caribbean Cruise Limited that had signed a letter of interest in support of the Port of Belize Expansion Project which included the cruise terminal.  When we spoke with former Prime Minister Dean Barrow on a previous occasion, he spoke about the tort of misfeasance that can be brought against someone in public office.

Isani Cayetano

“Is a charge of misfeasance, in the case of Erwin Contreras signing on to this document unbeknownst to your government at the time, a fitting claim to bring against him in court?

Dean Barrow

Dean Barrow, Former Prime Minister

“Well, if you mean, there is a tort of misfeasance in public office and it is a private tort.  A UDP government, a previous UDP government, had brought an action in that form of tort against two former ministers of the People’s United Party administration and the matter went all the way to the CCJ because that very question was asked, “Is this properly a tort?”  And the CCJ said yes.  It was a majority decision, not a unanimous decision.  The only issue there was can a government bring an action in tort against members of the government because, remember, the government is a continuing thing.  Administrations change, but the government is the government.  So that was the issue there, but there was no doubt that it is a tort that’s an existing tort and in fact, the position of the court was that it is principally suited for deployment as a private tort, as a tort brought against a private citizen or private entity against government officials for misfeasance in office.  So, in principle, the bringing of an action for damages by way of that claim, by way of that tort is perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable in terms of the law.  Whether there is the kind of evidence that can make out the tort is another matter.  Whether the Port [of Belize] people who have served notice that they are going to be bringing this claim against Mr. Contreras can show that what he did caused them damage so as to entitle them to damages is again another matter.”