INVESTIGATE THIS!
Sep 02, 2016 , http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....02/investigate-this/
The company which was originally selected to build the Specialty Hospital ended up being indebted to both the government and a private construction firm, BK International Incorporated.
The government was owed money advanced to the company for work which was never done. BK International Incorporated was owed for works done, but for which it allegedly did not receive payment.
The government subsequently seized a shipment of steel which was consigned to the company. The basis of this seizure is questionable. It is not clear whether the government had a legal instrument from the Courts to effect the seizure. There needs to be an investigation as to the legal basis of the seizure and if the Guyana Revenue Authority may have allowed the then government to seize the steel without proper legal authorization.
The fact remains, however, whether lawfully or unlawfully, that the steel ended up in the possession of the state. Possession, however, is not ownership.
The steel would have ended up in the hands of the state in any event, because the company constructing the specialty hospital had abandoned local operations and was no longer present in the jurisdiction. As such, the contents would have been seized by the state unless some other entity had filed a lien on these goods.
It needs to be determined whether prior to the seizure by the state, BK International Incorporated had received an authorization from the courts to place a lien or to levy on the steel imports.
The fact that the government was reportedly in possession of the steel would seem to suggest that at the time the government effected the seizure of the steel, there was no legal authorization from the courts for BK International Incorporated to levy on the steel. But this fact needs to be confirmed
What was interesting is how in the end BK International Incorporated got possession of the entire shipment of steel. If BK International had been issued authorization by the courts to levy on the steel, it could only have levied to the extent of the judgment it had received. There has been a suggestion in the media that the value of the steel that BK International Incorporated levied on was greater than the sum it was owed.
The sum it was owed is immaterial. What is important is what the courts have authorized. If the courts authorized that the entire shipment be levied on, then the value of the steel BK International Incorporated levied on is immaterial. It is hardly likely though that the courts would authorize the levying on an entire shipment worth multiple times more than the indebtedness of the company to BK International Incorporated.
What is baffling is the role of the state. Assuming that BK International Incorporated did have authorization from the Courts to levy on that specific shipment of steel, why did the government not move for a stay of execution on the grounds that the state had assumed possession of the steel, and therefore the shipment cannot be considered the property of the firm that was building the specialty hospital.
In other words, why did the government not challenge the levying on the steel by BK International Incorporated on the grounds that the steel was now the property of the government?
The issue of the propriety of the seizure of the steel by the government and the circumstances under which the steel ended up in the possession of BK International Incorporated requires an investigation, so that the true facts can be determined.
If Cabinet did not authorize the delivery of the steel to BK International Incorporated, then perhaps Cabinet would not be in a conflict of interest to have a three-man committee of members of Cabinet prepare another forty-eight hours report on the matter, as was the case with the bond which was rented by the Ministry of Health.
But given the legal issues involved, it is best if the President appoints a retired judge to prepare a report into this matter. It will not go away so long as there are unanswered questions.