Photo: Former UDP Minister Erwin Contreras
BELIZE CITY, Thurs. June 1, 2023
Port of Belize Ltd. (PBL) is pursuing all avenues regarding the Definitive Agreement signed by former UDP Minister Erwin Contreras and Portico Enterprises Ltd. The 30-page document dated October 1, 2020, gives Portico what has been described as obscene and extreme concessions and fiscal incentives for its Port of Magical Belize project proposed to be constructed on 1,400 acres of land situated 3 miles south of the Sibun River. PBL first invoked the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get its hands on the Definitive Agreement which it says remained secret for two and a half years. That, in their view, “suggests that there was some wrongdoing involved in its execution.” PBL says it got no response to its FOIA requests from relevant Government CEOs and subsequently prompted Prime Minister John Briceño to provide the document himself. That did not happen, but the agreement was ultimately leaked.
PBL is now turning to the Ombudsman for him to investigate former Minister Contreras to determine if he engaged in corruption or other wrongdoing in the signing of the highly controversial agreement. In a letter dated May 30, 2023, PBL CEO Ted Peralta cites sections of the Ombudsman Act, pointing out that wherever he has “reasonable cause to believe that ‘an authority or an officer or member of an authority has been guilty of corruption or other wrongdoing …, the Ombudsman may investigate the action so taken, provided that the ombudsman shall not investigate any matter or action which arose or was take(n) more than 10 years before the commencement of this Act.” Peralta adds that “authority” under the Act means a Ministry of Government and a Ministry includes references to the Minister.
Peralta says the investigation is necessary “… as there are objectively reasonable grounds to believe that, in signing the Definitive Agreement, Minister Contreras committed either a corrupt act or an act of wrongdoing.” He then proceeds to cite ten “factual circumstances” which, he says, “taken together, meet the threshold of reasonable cause that a corrupt act or wrongdoing has been committed, sufficient for you to initiate an investigation.” In support of his request, Peralta cites the declarations (with news transcripts attached) by former Prime Minister Dean Barrow, former Attorney General Michael Peyrefitte and former chairperson of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Investments Hon. Tracy Panton, who have all indicated that Contreras illegally signed the agreement because he had no authority to do so since it did not go to Cabinet. They affirm Cabinet never gave its approval.
In making his case, Peralta further highlights that the former Prime Minister and Attorney General have called for the matter to be investigated, and that it is unprecedented that a former PM and AG would “call for their own former colleagues and party member to be investigated.” Peralta states, “A perusal of the agreement will reveal that it is so one-sided and unfair in favour of the Developer, so extreme and obscene in the extent of the financial and economic benefits granted to the Developer, that no minister could have thought he had the power to unilaterally sign such an agreement without getting Cabinet approval or that of the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance, which strongly suggests wrongdoing was involved in the signing of that agreement.”
In concluding his letter to Ombudsman, Gilbert Swazo, Peralta writes that the “scandalous affair” requires investigation because it “exposes the Government and people of Belize to tremendous financial exposure and potential losses.” Peralta also affirms to Swazo, “… the Act authorises you, at the conclusion of your investigation, to report the matter to the National Assembly. If the report discloses the commission of a criminal offence, the National Assembly may then report the matter to the DPP. If the Ombudsman’s report discloses conduct that has caused damage to any person or his property, the victim may be facilitated in instituting proceedings for the recovery of damages.”
Swazo told Amandala today that he is not at liberty to discuss any case lodged with his office, but did say that once a written complaint is forwarded, “then the Ombudsman does have the obligation to do the due process as prescribed by the Ombudsman Act and to ascertain if the complaint is valid.” According to Swazo, he is also required to notify the complainant if an investigation will be conducted, and if one is undertaken, “the complainant will be kept apprised of the way forward and the findings as it relates to a complaint.”
Swazo also rejected the view that the Ombudsman’s Office does not have teeth. He affirmed, “the Ombudsman Act gives the direct responsibility to conduct an investigation and write a report about that specific investigation and make recommendations to align whatever wrongdoing is there. I don’t subscribe to the fact that the Ombudsman’s Office does not have any teeth at all, because of the fact that every official, every authority as prescribed by the law is not expected to act ultra vires to the law; and given the principles of the rule of law, then no one would want to operate as if though they are above the law.”