Photo: Erwin Contreras, Former UDP Minister of Economic Development

BELIZE CITY, Tues. Sept. 5, 2023

Former UDP Minister of Economic Development, Erwin Contreras, who is accused of unilaterally signing a Definitive Agreement that was seen as scandalously excessive in the concessions granted to Portico Enterprises Ltd.’s Port of Magical Belize project, and who is now being sued by Waterloo-related entities for his role in that agreement, entered his defense against the $10 million claim filed on June 9, 2023 by three Ashcroft Alliance companies behind Waterloo Enterprise Ltd.’s proposed cruise terminal and cargo expansion at the Port of Belize Ltd. (PBL). In the document submitted on August 23 by his attorney, William A. Lindo, Contreras calls the suit “frivolous, vexatious and a waste of the Court’s time” as it is “merely academic at this point”. Attorney for the Claimants, Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith had outlined that the claim was due to Contreras’ “deliberate, wilful, unlawful and clandestine” signing of the Portico Definitive Agreement (DA) on October 1, 2020 (a month before the November 2020 general elections) which resulted in financial losses to the Claimants—presumably due to investments made in anticipation of approval to proceed with their cruise terminal and cargo expansion project. As such, the companies are seeking special and general damages (including damages for loss of opportunity), aggravated damages, and exemplary damages for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

But Contreras refutes the claim, saying it is premature because the Claimants “have not suffered any material damage for its pipe dream and is put to strict proof of any loss, harm and damage suffered.” In fact, at the outset of the defense, where Lindo sets out who the claimants are, the PBL project is referred to as “fanciful.” Contreras later in the 7-page document makes the point that, because environmental clearance was twice denied to Waterloo’s Port of Belize project, PBL has not received regulatory approval for the project to move forward “despite any developmental costs incurred by the Claimants of its own volition to date and/or regardless of signing of the Definitive Agreement.” He added that, with the Prime Minister of Belize having publicly torn up a copy of the Portico Definitive Agreement in the House of Representatives while declaring that the Government of Belize will not honor the terms contained therein, the agreement “no longer subsists and no purported harm can be meted to the Claimants as a result of same.”

In laying out his defense against the accusation that he unlawfully and without authorization signed the Agreement, Contreras comments that he signed the Agreement in the “course of lawfully discharging his public functions as Minister with responsibility for Economic Development, Petroleum, Investment, Trade and Commerce,” and that in any case, he was acting in good faith when he did so. He further declared that he had implied actual authority and ostensible authority from the then UDP Government of Belize to enter into the Definitive Agreement, given that the agreement was a matter of economic development and investment, and he particularly took into account that Belize was in desperate need of investment “to propel the rebound of the Belizean economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Contreras therefore rejected in his defense that there was any abuse of power on his part and that he nor the Government owed duty of care to the Claimants who were “merely ‘intended developers.’”

The Claimants are arguing that Contreras recklessly abused his power as a minister and questioned his intentions, given that neither the then Cabinet nor the Sub-Committee for Investments had approved the Portico project. Contreras, however, refuted that accusation by stating that, apart from the authority bestowed on him to enter into agreements for and on behalf of the Government, “there is no ‘established procedure’ that the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers was required in order to authorize/allow the Defendant to enter into any agreement such as the Definitive Agreement.” Neither was there an edict or law, asserted Contreras, that the approval of Cabinet was needed for a Minister to enter into an agreement with a private entity. He opined in his defense that “Such a policy would lead to absurdity and bring the business of government to a halt.”

Another main submission in Contreras’ defense is that the Definitive Agreement indicated that parliamentary approval was required to give effect to the tax and financial concessions that were agreed upon. Contreras said that without such approval, the Agreement did not have the force of law.

In the defense, Contreras also denied that the Agreement was signed in a surreptitious or hasty manner, since the Government had been “in negotiations with the then Attorney General and the principals of Port of Magical Belize which, as far as the Defendant was aware, resulted in multiple drafts being exchanged.”  The Attorney General at the time was Michael Peyrefitte, who has since come out swinging against those assertions—and has accused Contreras of uttering untruths. He stated, “Well, maybe that’s what he feels like he had to say. Or maybe somebody told him to say that. But I can tell you, that is categorically not true. He could not have known about any negotiations between the Government, myself and Portico, because there were no negotiations happening.” He then recounted that he received a call with a request that there was a definitive agreement out there that Portico wanted him to sign, and he claimed he had said, “Absolutely not! I’m not signing any definitive agreement because we’re not there yet. Cabinet has not even considered that yet. And I can only sign after Cabinet instructs me to do so.” Peyrefitte said he told them to send the draft agreement to the head of the Cabinet Investment Sub-Committee, who at the time was Hon. Tracy Panton. According to Peyrefitte, the draft was obviously sent to Hon. Panton, and he further insisted that “… that was the one that the Prime Minister read in the National Assembly and tried to pretend like it was sent to me [Peyrefitte] when in fact it was sent to the Hon. Tracy Panton – which is not saying that the Hon. Panton did anything wrong. When you are in government, a lot of things get sent to you.”