An international tribunal is due to give a ruling within 90 days on the disputed multi-million dollar oil and gas agreement signed in 1996 between the Keith Mitchell government in St. George's and U.S oilman, Jack Grynberg.

The much anticipated decision has far-reaching implications for the island's energy sector which has the potential to impact heavily on Grenada's financial situation and its energy needs for the rest of the century.

According to well-placed sources, the ruling is expected before year-end following one week of testimony in London last month from officials of both the Grenada Government and Grynberg's RSM Production Corporation.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy, Gregory Bowen and Senior Energy Officer, John Auguste travelled to England to give evidence before the tribunal headed by Queen's Counsel, V.V. Veeder.

Minister Bowen was grilled by the legal team of lawyers representing RSM on June 21. Following is Part 1 of the evidence given by the Number Two Man in the Grenada government before the London Tribunal:


MR. PRESIDENT:  Good morning, ladies and  gentlemen.  We will start Day 4 of this hearing, the 21st of June 2007.  We now proceed to hear our next witness.  Mr. Bowen, you have before you a form of wording which we ask you to read out formally for the transcript.
           
A: I solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that I shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.                          

MR. PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.            

Mr. King?                                             

MINISTER GREGORY BOWEN                                  
Examination-in-chief by MR. KING: MR. KING:  Mr. President, thank you very much.  Minister Bowen, good morning.                  

A:  Good morning.                                    

Q:  Minister Bowen, you have submitted two witness statements in this proceeding dated 8th December, 2006, and 25th May, 2007.  Is that right?         

A: That's correct.                                  

Q:  Do you have those two witness statements in front of you?                                            

A:  Yes, I do.                                      

Q:  Is there anything that you would wish to change or correct about those two witness statements?                                              

A:  No.                                              

Q: Minister Bowen, I would just like to ask you a few questions this morning. The first relates to your second witness statement at paragraph 25 which I believe will be written submissions 2, page 575.  

You say there, and I will just read a tiny bit of it and ask you a question, you say: "RSM says it is ready and willing to perform its obligations under the (now terminated) agreement.  

I doubt that on both scores, but in any event it is clear that the trust and confidence that existed between the parties in 1996 has been destroyed.  In my view RSM and Mr. Grynberg have only themselves to blame for this".   I just wanted to ask you, sir, if you could view, the trust between the parties became destroyed.                                            

A: In the beginning, 1995 or thereabouts, Mr. Grynberg and RSM came to us singing beautiful songs about the development of Grenada, particularly in the oil and gas industry, how the country will benefit, how people's standard of living will be raised, and we were happy.  

Lo and behold, we found out that they signed the agreement, did nothing. Locked up the territory. Indeed, we learned later          that (they) had farmed out in an arrangement where they were benefitting tremendously at the great expense of our country.  They were carried.  They did nothing, while we were just there, waiting.  

They embarrassed us before our neighbours, neighbours as Trinidad & Tobago, without whom, after two disturbing hurricanes, destroying hurricanes, Grenada would not have survived, were we not in good relationship with Trinidad & Tobago. They broke the law, laws that not even the Prime Minister, or any Minister of Cabinet can break. We must uphold the law of Grenada.  

The relationship that we have with them certainly would have lost the type of closeness, or whatever was realised for partners to work.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge, and we do see real diplomatic problems with this environment of any continued relationship, and Grenada would stand to lose a significant amount.                                     

Q: Thank you very much.  A few additional questions, Minister Bowen.  Mr. Mr. Grynberg testified yesterday, and I believe the transcript reference is Day 3, page 15, lines 1 through 4, I will not put that in front of you because I will summarise it. It is very short  It may be the draft transcript,  so -- with the caveat --                                   

MR. PRESIDENT:  We are making that allowance now.                                        

MR. KING:  In any event, the point he made is that he said the 4th July 1996 agreement was approved by Grenada's Parliament. I wanted to ask you whether that was correct.                     

A:  That is not correct.                             

Q:  Who did approve the 1996 agreement?              

A:  It would be the cabinet.                         

Q: I would like to put a document in front of you if I may, Minister Bowen.  It is Exhibit C 18.  It is exhibits 3, page 604.  I believe you will recognise this as a letter from Mr. Grynberg to the Permanent Secretary and the Ministry of Finance dated 27th of February 1994.  

A:  Yes.  It is.                                   

Q:  Can you turn to the second page and tell me if it is copied to anyone else?                        

A:  No, sir.  This letter is not copied to anyone.    
                                                
Q:  Minister Bowen in your first witness statement at paragraph 46,which would be witness statements 1, page 277, it is very short so I will  simply summarise it, you say there, and I quote you, but ask you to look at your witness statement too, you say at the top of the page in paragraph 46, you refer to the 27th of February letter in the first sentence, and then you say: "I do not recall seeing this letter at the time".

Just leave those open. I would like to refer you to a third and last document which is exhibit R111. It doesn't have a bundle reference because it came in during the hearing.  

I simply wanted to ask you first, Minister Bowen, if you could tell me what this document is.                        

A: This document is a correspondence register from the Ministry of Finance. It is where mails and correspondence are recorded when received, and a general description of the subject of the corresponding matter.
                                   
Q:  Can you just confirm for us which dates this covers?

A: This covers April the 13th, 2004, April the 14th, 2004, and on to April the 15th, 2004.   

Q:  How did you come into possession of this document?  
                                                
A:  I came into possession of this document while I was in London before the commencement of this hearing, and my attorneys, at the request of the opposing attorneys, had asked me to secure certain documents, and they requested Grenada to send these documents up to us.

Q:   One of those documents that was sent to you, you are saying, is the log that appears there?      

A:  That's correct.                                

Q:  If I can refer you about halfway down the page you see an entry letter from Jack J. Grynberg to the Permanent Secretary under the date stamp for the 14th of April 2004.  
Do you know to what that entry refers?                                                     

A: This entry refers to February 27th, 2004 letter from Mr. Grynberg to the Permanent Secretary and the Ministry of Finance.                                

Q: How did you know that?  How did you find that out?                                                   

A: I found that out because I asked the officials in the Ministry of Finance to send up to us the documentations with respect to an application from RSM and Mr. Grynberg, and on looking at the sheet, there were two such documentations, one from James A Bristol, application for license, and one from Jack J Grynberg to the Permanent Secretary, and I was not certain whether both would be the application for the license, so I asked them to send to me both documents.                                     

Q: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I am now intending to ask Minister Bowen a few questions about the Boatswain transcript.   As you know, we have objected to the relevance and admissibility of that document, and indeed, to questioning about that document, but in as much as the Tribunal has said that Mr. Marriot is free, if he wishes, to ask questions about it on the limited issue of credit, I would like to pose just a few questions to the Minister.                      

MR. PRESIDENT:  Well, there are two issues.  One is you are going to run over your ten minutes if you do that.                          

MR. KING:  I think this will take two to three minutes.                                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  And number 2, Mr. Marriot hasn't done this yet and this is probably more appropriate for re-examination.                       

MR. KING:  I thought we might be able to clear it up in advance.  I don't know if Mr. Marriot --                                        

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, would you appreciate it being cleared up in advance?          

MR. MARRIOTT:  Yes.                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  I think for the moment you cannot do this because you are introducing material which you are not allowed to introduce, but you will certainly have a chance, if it is raised by Mr. Marriot, to return to it later.                                  

MR. KING:  That is fine.  I thought I understood you to say you would like to have it cleared up in advance.                             

MR. PRESIDENT:  I am sorry, did you say, "No"?                                                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  No, I said, "Yes". I have no difficulty if, in fact, the Minister wants to answer my friend's questions about the Boatswain interview, and we will see what he says.                                                

MR. KING:  It will be very brief but it is subject to the caveat that I mentioned before.  Now, Minister Bowen, have you read the Boatswain transcript?                                

A:  Yes, I have it.                                

Q:  Is it correct that there is an agreement to fund Grenada's defence in this case?                   

A:  Yes. There is.                                  

Q:   Why did Grenada enter into such an agreement?                                                  

A:  Because Grenada, particularly, after the two devastating hurricanes, was in no position to finance the cost of the defence in this arbitration.        

Q: Who is contributing the funds?                   

A: The funds have been contributed by Global Petroleum Group.                                          

Q: Is that a corporation or a group of companies?                                               

A: This is a private limited liability company.                                                    

Q:  Now, Minister Bowen, you have been sued by Mr. Grynberg, GPC and RSM in New York.  Isn't that right?                                                     

A: That's correct.                               

Q: Is GPG, Global Petroleum Group, a Defendant in the New York action?                         

A:  GPG is not a Defendant in the New York action.                                                     

Q:  Are any of your co-defendants in the New York action shareholders of GPG?                     

A:  Not to my knowledge.                             

Q: Minister Bowen, does the amount with GPG contain a confidentiality clause?                          

A: Yes, it does.                                    

Q:  Did you sign the agreement on behalf of the government?                                             

A:  Yes, I did.                                    

Q:  Are you in a position to discuss the terms of the agreement?                                         

A:  No.  I am not in a position to discuss the terms of the agreement.                                     

MR. KING:  Thank you very much.                  

Mr. President, that concludes the direct examination.                                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much,             

Mr. King.  As we indicated yesterday, we would break now and start at 9.30.  I apologise for that. I have tried to rearrange it several times this week, but I have finally crashed this morning.  Let's just talk a little bit, though, if we have a few moments, and Mr. Bowen, this doesn't concern you, you can leave the table but please don't discuss the case until you return before the Tribunal, about the arrangements for tomorrow, because we want to try and establish the timings to ensure that we finish in a timely manner tomorrow afternoon.  

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's resume. Mr. Marriot?                                           

Cross-examination by MR. MARRIOT:                         

MR. MARRIOTT:  Yes.  Good morning, Minister.                                              

A:  Good morning.                              

Q:  You gave some answers to Mr. King about the deal you have struck with Global to finance this arbitration.  Do you remember that?

A: Yes, I remember.                               

Q: I would like to ask you some more questions about that. It is right, isn't it, that Mr. Korchagin is a Defendant in the New York proceedings, albeit that he has not yet been served?    

A: I know that he's a Defendant.                    

Q:  Mr. Auguste told us yesterday that in the course of 2004 he met Vasiliev Korchagin and (Model) who are all directors of Global.  You were here when he said that?  
                                    
A:  I was when he said he met them, yes.           

Q:  He said he met them because you had told them to go to talk to him.  Do you remember him saying that?                                              

A:  Yes, I remember him saying that.                

Q: That is true, isn't it?                          

A: I have no reason to doubt it. This is a normal course of action, as opposed to with the other persons, whenever exploration personnel would  come to me I will direct them (to) the Officer.
                
Q:  Yes.  When and where did you first meet any or all of these three gentlemen?

A:  Mr. Model was in Grenada for quite a while before doing other business. The other two gentlemen I would take it was met just around the time when Mr. Auguste said that I send them to him.                

Q:  You had known Mr. Model for some time. Is that right?
                                              
A:  Yes.  Mr. Model was in Grenada for some time before.                                                

Q:  Can you remember when you first met him?         

A:  At, maybe, perhaps the end of '99 or 2000. Somewhere way back then.

Q:  You have other ministerial responsibilities, don't you?                                

A:  Yes, I do.                                     

Q:  Was the government of Grenada in any kind of contractual relationship with Mr. Model?             

A:  No.  Mr. Model was a businessman on his own.                                                        

Q:  You said a moment ago that you would normally send exploration people to see Mr. Auguste in the Ministry.                                          

A: That's correct.                                 

Q:  Is it a safe assumption that when you saw -- shall we just call them, "The Russians", for now -- when you saw the Russians, (they came to talk to you about exploration.  Is that right?             

A: That would be right.                             

Q:  What did they want?                              

A: Learning from Mr. Auguste after they would have been --                                                

Q:  No, Minister.  What did they want from you when you saw them?                                          

A: They would have wanted to discuss oil and gas exploration.                                            

Q:  Did they tell you they wanted to do oil and gas exploration offshore Grenada?                      

A:  That may have been the general contents, but I would not have carried on a significant amount of information with them.                                   
Q:  Did they tell you who they were?               

A:  They would have given me their names, yes.       

Q:  Mr. Model introduced his two colleagues. Is that right?                                              

A:  I wouldn't call them, "Colleagues". He may have brought them along.                                    

Q:  They are all directors of Global, aren't they?                                                       

A: That is so, as I have learned.                   

Q:  Did you say, "Well, who is Global?"              

A:  Oh, that did not come to me at that point in terms of Global.  They would simply have been gentlemen approaching.                                      

Q:  But we know that the company was incorporated in late 2003.  Do you know that?            

A:   No.                                           

Q:  Three Russians come to see you and they want to talk about exploration.  What do you ask them about, who they are, what resources they have, what they want to do, what experience they have, and so on?

A: Oh, certainly I would not ask them that at the first stage.  I would direct them to the Energy Officer.                                                    

Q:  How many times did you see them, any or all of them, or anyone else introduced to you by them, in the year 2004?
                          
A: I would say once, that I would have thought.                                                    

Q:  You would say once?  When?                       

A:  Just around the same time that they would  have visited me from Mr. Auguste.                        

Q:  What did you discuss on the second occasion?                                                   

A:  Second occasion, maybe in 2005 --               

Q:  No, you have just told me the second occasion was 2004.  I am just staying with 2004 for a moment.                                                  

MR. PRESIDENT:  I am sorry, Mr. Marriot,  is that what the witness said?                         

MR. MARRIOTT:  I asked him the question: "How many times did you see them in the year 2004?" "I would say once.  That is what I would have thought". "You would say once.  When is this?"  "Just around the same time as they would have visited me from Mr. Auguste". "What did you discuss on the second occasion?"                                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  You asked him: "You just told me the second occasion was 2004.  Was that correct?"                              

MR. MARRIOTT:  I thought he said the second occasion was 2004.                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  Please continue.  I didn't hear that.                                           

MR. MARRIOTT:  Well, in that case, I withdraw that.  Is the second occasion in 2005?  

A:  That is to my recollection.                   

Q:  Did you know they were Global when they came to see you in 2005?                                    

A:  About that time, yes, I would have --   

Q:  You see, Mr. Auguste knew they were Global when he saw them on the first occasion in 2004. That is what he told us yesterday.  

A:  Well, he may have quizzed them. I am not sure he would have to ask them many of the questions that you would normally have asked them.

Q:  Presumably he reported to you that he had seen them?                                                  

A:  Well, I sent them to him.                     

Q: That wasn't my question. Presumably he reported to you that he had seen them?                    

A:  That may be so.                             

Q:  Is it the habit that reports are oral or in writing or both within your government?                 

A: Significant reports will be in writing, but a matter where prospective persons will come to find information, many times there will be no problem, unless something would have materialised from the visit --                                        

Q:  How many other people came to see you in 2004 about exploration in Grenada?                        

A:  I could recall, again, two gentlemen passing through who said they were doing business in Latin America, and again I sent them to Mr. Auguste.       

Q:  Who were they?                                 

A:  I can't recall the names at this point in time. Again, Mr. Auguste never reported to me on them.

A:    I see most of these people at my office.
      
Q:  Did you see them anywhere else?                

A:  I can't recall.  I don't think so.               

Q:  What was discussed when you did see them?       

A:  Certainly at that point I believe that discussion would have centered around their interest in petroleum exploration.                                   

Q:  Did they, at that time, tell you who they were?                                                       

A: Yes.                                            

Q:  What did they tell you?                          

A: At that point they would have told me that they would have been part of the names, and perhaps some of the information would have already been given to Mr. Auguste.                                      

Q:  I am afraid I am not understanding the first part of that. They would have been part of the names.  What do you mean by that?
                    
A: They would have told me the names of their organisation, and some of the information that they would have already given to Mr. Auguste.

Q:  What did they tell you about their organisation?

A:  That they had resources from groups of companies and that is how they got the name, "The group", because it was interesting to see why there should be a group, Global Petroleum Group.
            
Q:  What were the groups of companies they referred to?

A:  Companies, nearly all over the world.   
        
Q:  For instance?                                   

A:  For instance companies in the Middle East, companies in Russia.
                                   
Q:  These are oil exploration companies, are they?                                                   

A: Some of them.  Shipping, oil shipping, oil exploration.  Even -- yes, where you do the seismic researches, ships and things like that.                     

Q:  Did they tell you where they were working in the world?

A:  They did refer us to certain information on certain websites that we checked.  As a matter of fact, when we checked one, a company, they seemed to be one of the biggest -- well, exploration is a big term, but seismic scientific investigation company and that they did work in the US and the UK, in China.                                                    

                                                                  
Q:  Can you remember now any of these names?

A: The name of the exploration company is very close in my mind but I can't recall it now.

Q:  Are you telling this Tribunal that you had discussions with these people and you don't remember the names of the group that they were saying they belonged to?

A:  No. What I am saying is I don't remember the name of the company.  I am sure if I go on the company I will pick up a scientific company in Russia, I certainly will be able to pinpoint and say exactly this is the --   
                                 
Q:  Would you like to do that now?                   

MR. KING:  Mr. President, if I may intervene, I think we are getting dangerously close to what is looking like discovery for the New York action.                                    

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot?  Is that what you are doing?                                       

MR. MARRIOTT:  No.                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's proceed for the time being.  How do you propose the witness to get on to the Internet as we speak?                       

MR. MARRIOTT:  You can do it in this building and I would be happy to ask you to stop for ten minutes to enable him to do it.         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Would it be easier if you suggested a name to him to jog his memory or --       

MR. MARRIOTT:  Well, the difficulty is that until this line of questioning now, this is the first time a story has emerged as to who Global is said to be.                                

MR. KING:  And the relevance of that to this proceeding would be what is this.                

MR. MARRIOTT:  Forgive me Mr. King, you will have your time in a moment, I am sure.          

MR. KING:  I am sorry.                          

MR. MARRIOTT:  The problem is that from all the published information that we have about what this witness and other members of his government have been saying publicly, this is the first time, as far as I am aware, that we have had anything like this.                       

MR. PRESIDENT:  We know from the procedural materials we have seen in this arbitration to whom you or the witness may be referring, and we have the names in the file.
Would it be easier for you to suggest those names or do you really want this witness to break for ten minutes to look on the Internet?        

MR. MARRIOTT:  I don't particularly want to break the flow of this, but perhaps we can, as it were, park that question to one side for the moment, and come back to it towards the end, if that is acceptable to you.                     

MR. PRESIDENT:  Of course it is.  Mr. King, did you have a further protest to make or were you pursuing the former protest.                                              

MR. KING:  Only to add, Mr. President, that the relevance of any of this to the issues in this proceeding seems to me nil, and so when we are taking into account whether people should be asked to look at the Internet or even whether this line of questioning should go on at all I would simply urge the Tribunal to consider that this seems to have no relevance whatsoever.                                           

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, please continue.  We will see where it goes.                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  Yes.  At any time, I am obviously in your hands with this, at any time the Tribunal thinks that these questions are improper the Tribunal only has to say so and we can discuss it. How many times did you see these people in 2005?                                               

A:  I cannot recall, but as I say, around two or three times.                                             

Q:  I am sorry.  I was being distracted.  Can I just read the ... oh yes. Now, was Mr. Auguste involved in any of these discussions?  
                                    
A:  Yes, he was, in some of the technical discussions.                                                

Q:  In the year 2005?                                

A: In the technical discussions, yes, he was.      

Q:  What were the technical discussions in 2005?                                                      

A:  Basically, again, their experience, their resources, and other basic information that would have required persons who want to get involved in oil and gas exploration.                                  

Q: They can only get involved in oil and gas exploration, Minister, if they make an agreement with you.  Isn't that right?                                

A:  Eventually you make an agreement, yes.           

Q: They cannot go, as has been pointed out, 24  and you yourself said, "Crime", they cannot go with seismic ships or any other forms of exploration, let alone work of drilling in your waters without your permission.  That's right, isn't it?
                   
A: That's correct.                                  

Q: They would need to make an agreement with you in order to do that, wouldn't they?                    

A:  They would.                                     

Q:  They have made an agreement with you on the 28th of September 2005, haven't they?                  

A:  They have made a financing agreement, yes.       

Q:  You say that agreement is limited to the financing of this arbitration.  Is that right?          

MR. KING:  Again, Mr. President, I am so sorry, but again, we are getting into, now, questions about the content of the agreement. Minister Bowen is a Minister of the government. He said there is a confidentiality clause in  the agreement, and I think we have come very close to the point where he is being asked to talk about the content of the agreement in violation of that, and I think for this Tribunal to direct him to do that would be a very, very serious matter indeed.                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  Well, forgive me --               

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, you may answer to that but where are you going with the content of this agreement, beyond the funding of this ICSID arbitration?  Why is that relevant, either as to credit, or as to any other issue in the case?                            

MR. MARRIOTT:  I am going on the funding issue.  I shall be asking you, as will be obvious in due course, to draw certain inferences, but I am going on the funding question.                                           

MR. PRESIDENT:  Does that mean you don't need to ask any other question apart from the funding aspect of the agreement?                       
MR. MARRIOTT:  No, because I am entitled to go into the factual matrix of this agreement and the events that led up to it, and what happened subsequently, and that I am entitled to do.                                                 

MR. PRESIDENT:  Why are you entitled to do that?                                                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  Because this is going to the credit of this witness, and how this agreement was made. We heard yesterday what Mr. Auguste knew about it.  He didn't know about this agreement.  He never saw these people after 2004.
I am entitled to ask questions of this witness because it goes very much to the credit issue. Now, if, at any time, as I said a moment ago, I ask a question which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, transgresses that line, then I am sure you will stop me.                                

MR. PRESIDENT:  Well, I can see where you are going in asking questions about the funding aspect of this agreement. You indicated the basis of your questions on that factor.  

Why are you interested in other aspects of the agreement?  That is not something, certainly speaking for myself, I have understood.          

MR. MARRIOTT:  Well, it is a little difficult, and perhaps --                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  Do you want the witness to leave the room?  It may be easier if we can speak openly.                                        

MR. MARRIOTT:  Yes.                            

(Witness leaves the room)                    

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, you are free to speak.                                              

MR. MARRIOTT:  The difficulty is simply this; what this witness has said, both in the statement in, in the pleadings, and again in the talk he gave at the beginning, is that there is no trust and confidence.

Part of the reason there may be no trust and confidence, and it is a question of trust and confidence in whom, is this Minister's behaviour and the behaviour of his Prime Minister, and I shall be putting matters to him from the public record about that.

Part of the trust and confidence issue is  to show what this man (Gregory Bowen) did, and we have already established that what he was doing was  discussing oil exploration matters with, I will just call them, "The Russians", and the person  who is the Senior Officer in the Ministry (John Auguste) who told us yesterday before whom, across whose desk these matters would be expected to come, knew nothing about this agreement and these discussions in 2005.  
This is the first time, as far as I am aware from what I have read, that this Minister has begun to give a coherent explanation of what he did with Global, and who Global are. There is a further issue here.         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Just stop there.  I mean, are we right in inferring who Global are from what we have seen in the materials in the file? Are you prepared to --  

MR. MARRIOTT:  I am not going to make submissions about that now.                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  But we are talking about a particular person and a particular  Russian group of people?

MR. MARRIOTT:  Yes, and we now know that it is a group with worldwide interests in oil and gas shipping, seismic investigation and all the rest of it.

Now, there is another aspect to this where these questions are relevant. What the government says is, "We were entitled to  terminate you in 2005", when they did it, if my memory is correct, in August, and, "We were  entitled to refuse to give you a license under 3.1 of the agreement because you were 17 days late". That is taking place in April of 2004.

We know from this witness and from Mr. Auguste yesterday that before that time, and certainly around that time, they were talking to these  people.

Now, I will, in due course -- I don't want to make closing submissions now, but I will in due course be addressing you on the  significance of this, but at the moment, I am entitled to ask questions about the funding agreement.

Let me accept against myself for a moment that the agreement of the 28th of September 2005 is, in the words of the Court of Appeal in  the Fayid case, a pure funding agreement.

Let's accept that. I want to ask him questions about that, and monies which have been paid under that agreement. Because the US$2.5 million that the Minister of Finance talks about by Mr. Boatswain, he says this is money which came as a consequence of that agreement, US$2.5 million, and it is being used  exclusively to finance the Freshfields team in this arbitration.  I want to test that with this witness.                                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Now, assuming you test it successfully.  Where does it go, as regards your case?                                            

MR. MARRIOTT:  It destroys his credit.  If it doesn't destroy it, he's badly holed in the water.                                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  For that exercise do you need to ask him about any of the other,  non-funding confidentiality aspects of this agreement?    
                                        
MR. MARRIOTT:  No.  I would say this one final point. You cannot use a confidentiality clause in an agreement as a matter of English  law to cloak inequity.                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  We are not quite there yet Mr. Marriot.                                           

MR. MARRIOTT:  No.  We are not quite there yet which is why I want to keep on with the questions.                                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. King, you have heard the answer given by Mr. Marriot.  It goes to credit.  He's not interested, he says, for that purpose, in going beyond, as we understood him, the financing part of this agreement.                  

MR. KING:  I thought I heard a little bit  of a change between the breadth of the questions that was described in the beginning  and what we came down to at the end.  

We are  very concerned about questions that would ask about the content of any agreements because of the confidentiality.  We frankly think that funding is, in any event, irrelevant and we thought that the Tribunal had taken that position in its earlier decisions.

I think we would think that the Claimant can legitimately ask whether Grenada has entered into commitments with a third party and entitle that third party to explore in areas to which the Claimant says it has an interest, but they should not be able to go beyond that.

As for the financing, I again fail to see the relevance.  We have this sinister suggestion about Russians. The fact is,  Mr. President, that the agreement about funding seems to simply be a result, yet another consequence of RSM's actions in the sense that the State was faced with a claim which it had no finances to defend.                                 

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, we are going to withdraw for a few moments.  If you want to add anything in response to what Mr. King has said, you are free to do so.                          

Mr. MARRIOTT:  No.                              

Mr. PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  We will be back within five minutes.                              

Mr. PRESIDENT:  Let's resume.  The Tribunal has deliberated upon the challenge by the Respondent to the line of questions put by the Claimant in cross-examination of Mr. Bowen.

As we understand the position from the  Claimant, this cross-examination is not intended as a fishing expedition for material to be used in the New York proceedings.

The Tribunal also understands that this cross-examination goes only to the credit of this witness, Mr. Bowen, and the Tribunal also understands that this cross-examination does not make relevant for that purpose the non-funding confidential aspect of the agreement between the Respondent and for abbreviations, the, "Russian", group.

Now, on that basis, the Tribunal will  permit the cross-examination to continue, but for the avoidance of doubt, it will not require this witness, Mr. Bowen, to respond to any question relating to non-funding confidential aspects of the agreement with the Russian group. Is that clear, Mr. Marriot?                     

MR. MARRIOTT:  That is very clear.  I will certainly endeavour to keep within those rules. Should you think at any time that I am stepping over the line, I would expect that you will tell me.  But it is not my intention to step over the line.                                     

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. King, you maintain the right to raise any further objection as we proceed with this cross-examination?                   

MR. KING:  Thank you, Mr. President, and just one last point, if I may.  I think it is consistent with what the Tribunal just said. I think in light of the history of this we would appreciate a representation from LeBoeuf that whatever is dis

MR. MARRIOTT:  I am not involved in the New York action.  My firm is not involved in  the New York action.  I am aware of my professional responsibilities, and so are my colleagues.                                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's leave it there for the time being, Mr. King, but you can come back to that later.                                       

MR. KING:  Thank you.                           

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's have the witness back. Mr. Bowen, we are sorry to keep you waiting.  We are now in a position to resume with the questions, having clarified certain matters.  Mr. Marriot will now resume his questions to you.                                    

A: Thank you, Mr. President.                       

MR. MARRIOTT:  Is it right that you negotiated the 28th of September agreement on funding yourself?                                     

A:  Yes, I led the negotiation.                      

Q:  Who else was with you on the negotiation?       

A:  Personnel from the Legal department.             

Q:  With whom were you actually negotiating?         

A:  Representatives from GPG.                        

Q: Who were they?                                   

A: They were Mr. Edward Vasiliev, and Mr. Lev Korchagin.                                                  

Q: Anyone else?                                     

A:  No.                                            

Q:  Where were the negotiations held?                

A:  Mainly at my office.                             

Q:  Where else?                                      

A:  It could be, possibly, in the Legal department.                                                 

Q:  Was there one meeting or more than one meeting?                                                    

A:  There were more than one meeting. Most of the negotiations, again, went on through the fax and  the exchange of drafts, and so forth.

Q:  Who proposed Freshfields to you?              

A:  Let me think about it.  I may have picked up Freshfields on the Internet.   
                       
Q:  That will make their Marketing people very happy, Minister.                                            Were Freshfields appointed before or after the agreement was concluded?    

A:  I cannot say for certain but it was around the --                                                      

Q:  Around the same time?                           

A: Yes.                                           

Q:  Did the agreement go to Cabinet?                 

A:  Oh yes, the agreement went to Cabinet.           

Q:  Cabinet approved it?                            

A:  Yes.                                             

Q:  All your colleagues knew that it had been made, right?

A:   Colleagues knew in the Cabinet that was made, yes.                                                  

Q:  Secondly, what it said?                          

A: They must have known what it said.               

Q:  Who signed it on behalf of the government?       

A:  I did.                                           

Q:  Can we have a look at the transcript of the interview with Minister Boatswain, which had --         

MR. PRESIDENT:  This doesn't have an exhibit number nor will it, but is there a hard copy available for the Tribunal?  We have it electronically. Do the Respondents have a hard copy?             

MR. KING:  We do, Mr. President.                

MR. MARRIOTT:  Have you read this transcript?                                            

A:  Yes, I have read the transcript.                

Q:  When did you read it?                          

A:  Maybe some days, perhaps.                        

Q:  Pardon?                                         

A:  Some dates, when I was in London.                

Q:  When you were in London?                      

A:  Yes.                                             

Q:  Can you go towards the bottom of the first page?  I forget his name, but this is a well known  radio (George Grant) -- he's the sort of Jeremy Paxman of Grenada, isn't he?  You may not know who Jeremy Paxman is.    
     
A:  No, and I certainly don't know the name.         

Q:  Mr. Paxman would be terribly disappointed that his reputation doesn't extend beyond here.           

A:   Neither do I know the name of this programme (Sundays with George Grant).                                                  

Q:  Yes.  Okay.  Is it Clark, or something?          

A:  I don't know his name (George Grant).                           

Q: You see down the bottom, the interviewer says to the Minister (Anthony Boatswain: "Can you confirm there was an agreement, though?  I mean, if you are going to  receive US$2.5 million I am assuming there is some sort of agreement". The reply is: "Um.  You haven't seen an agreement". Had he seen it or hadn't he seen it?        

A:  First page?  Are we on the first page?           

Q:  At the bottom of the first page.                

A:  Yes, I have seen what is written here.        

Q:  Further on, he says, if you look at page -- bottom of page 4, top of page 5, he's asked  a question: "Okay, all right.  So, I appreciate you clarifying that for me but once again you have said that as far as you know there was no agreement?

No, I am not commenting on that.  I am not commenting.  I haven't said that at all. What is the agreement for?  What?  Okay.  (this is the question) these funds came to us from one Mr. Model, was it?"  

Answer from the Minister: "I have got to check back. I have got to check whether it is Model or whether it is Global Petroleum.  Question, Global Petroleum?  Yes. Yes". Then further down:  "So as far as you are concerned (this  is the question) there was an agreement. You are just not sure whether it was with Model or whether it was with the petroleum company.

 Correct. So there was an agreement?  Answer, I am pretty sure there ought to be an agreement.  Okay.  Answer, I do not see why someone would. There must be an agreement". That finishes the interview.  Where is this agreement actually kept?  In your Ministry?  
     
A:  I would certainly have a copy. The Legal department would have a copy.

Q:  The Finance Minister would -- or Ministry, would have a copy?

A:  Should have a copy.  Yes.                        

Q:  And the Minister describes the money, the US$2.5 million, as not being a loan.  Is he right about that?  You see on page 4 he says, where he is asked where the money is put, he says: "It is under grants". "Grants", is a budget item, isn't it, of --   
                                               
A:  Yes.                                          

Q:  He says: "Yes, yes.  So, for all intents and purposes we can assume we received this as a grant, yes, yes, and we do not have to repay that?  No". That's right, isn't it?
                 
A Yes, correct, to a certain sense, because whatever is not used for the arbitration must be repaid.
                                                 
Q:  How much have you spent on the arbitration so far?                                                     

A: That I can't recall offhand.  Bills, some have been paid and I am sure there are more bills in the mail, and I cannot really --                             

Q:  Is it more or less than US$2.5 million?          

A:  Again, I cannot say at this point.             

Q:  Is this fund being used, also, to finance Paul Weiss in New York where you are a Defendant?          
MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, that may step over the line. Why is that a relevant question for us?                                               

MR. MARRIOTT:  Because the government says, this Minister said the government had no money for this kind of thing, so I would like to know whether this money is being used for Paul Weiss as well.  But if you think the question is irregular, then I will withdraw it.       

MR. PRESIDENT:  It is getting into the New York legal proceedings which I expect are fairly sensitive.  Is there an objection to that question?   

MR. KING:  Absolutely.                          

MR. MARRIOTT:  I thought there might be. Let's just stick, then, with this arbitration.  That is probably enough for us. So you don't know whether the fees so far are more or less than US$2.5 million?                     

A:  No, I don't know.                                

Q:  When was the US$2.5 million paid?

A:  I would believe sometime after, maybe months after July, or, sorry, September 2005.            

Q:  In about October 2005, October, November 2005 you get US$2.5 million, and what are you doing? Drawing down on it?                                         

A: That is right. The Ministry of Finance draws and pays the bill.                                    

Q:  Have you received any other monies from Global?                                                     

A:    No, I haven't.  Or we have not.                 

Q:  Our information, Minister, is that US$1,899,975, which is US$1.9 million less US$25, was received from the Bank of America into Republic Bank, Fish Sea International Corporation, re. accord to the agreement of the 28th of September 2005 between the government of Grenada and Global Petroleum Group.  Do you know anything about that?
      
A: That is part of the funding.                  

Q:  Minister, that cannot be right. You just told us that US$2.5 million was paid in about a month or so after the agreement was entered into. That is in 2005. The payment I have just referred to is the 25th of May, 2006.  
                               
A:  Well, I would have to stand corrected on that because that, I believe, is part of the funding, in terms of the time that it came in.  
         
Q:  Now, have you had any other money from Global or anyone connected with Global either under the funding agreement or separately.  

A:  No.  Certainly not that I know of.

Q:  Are you sure about that, Minister?            

A:  No monies, no.  We may have got services, I do believe, from different lawyers with respect to  the arbitration.
                          
Q:  You mean other people than Freshfields?

A:  Oh yes, Freshfields was second of our legal representation.                                       
Q:  But you say:"No monies, no.  We may have got services, I do believe, from different lawyers with respect to the arbitration". I asked you whether that was from people, lawyers, other than Freshfields, "Yes", or,  "No"?
                                                   
A:  Yes.  We had lawyers before Freshfields.         

Q:  You had lawyers before Freshfields?             

A: Yes.                                             

Q:  Who were they?                                  

A:  DLA Rudnick piper.                              

Q:  Who paid them?                                   

A:  The same arrangement.                            

Q:   Do you mean the 28th of September agreement of 2005 covered DLA Piper Rudnick or was there a different agreement covering them?

A:  No.  It was the same arrangement in terms of whatever use we made for legal fees with respect to the arbitration.                                         

Q:  When were DLA Piper Rudnick brought into this?                                                       

A:  Maybe in 2005, but certainly before  Freshfields.                                                

Q:  Freshfields come in about the same time, you told us, as the agreement of the 28th of September, 2005.                                            

A:  Yes. Thereabouts.                               

Q:  You are saying that DLA Piper Rudnick were in before?                                                  

A:  Before.                                          

Q:  How long before?                                 

A:  Not too long before, because the engagement didn't last with them very long.               

Q: They were paid, you say, under the agreement of the 28th of September?                        

A:  They were paid under the same arrangement, yes.                                                        

Q:  There was no separate understanding about  paying their fees before?

A:   No.                                            

Q:  Did you find DLA Piper Rudnick on the Internet?                                                   

A:  No.  We visited London, and I believe through some legal persons and lawyers we visited  about four firms.
                                       
Q:  I see.  You organised that all yourself?  
      
A: Together with the Legal department.            

Q:  I see.                                           

A:  The legal personnel were there every  visit.                                                      

Q:   Do you remember how much you have paid DLA Piper Rudnick?                                               

A:  No, I can't recall at this point in time.     

Q:  Am I right in assuming that this is the first time this account has ever been given by you?        

A:  To the public, yes.                              

Q:  Although you have come under enormous pressure in Grenada for a long time now to tell that story, have you not.
                                       
A:  Well, yes, as I told the Parliament and the public, after these hearings, and after the court case in New York, we will give them a full account and that information could be extremely damaging to us in that it could jeopardize both proceedings, and the public and the Parliament indeed said yes.  
Of course the newspapers will always be there and there and there.                     

Q:  How would it be extremely jeopardising to you, Minister, to tell what you have just told to this Tribunal?  How is it extremely damaging to tell what you have just told to the New York judge?            

A:  According to legal advice it could be damaging.  There is a confidentiality clause.                                                

Q:  You are worried that the people who are financing you might object if this comes out in either this arbitration or the court.  Is that right?                                                      

MR. KING:  Mr. President we are getting very close to the court again.                         

MR. MARRIOTT:  No.  We are not getting anywhere near that.  I am prepared to limit the question to this arbitration.                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's do it on that basis otherwise we head for trouble.                         

MR. MARRIOTT:  Let me ask the question again. So, you are worried that the people who are financing you might object if this comes out in this arbitration.  Is that right?              

A:  Not only the people who are financing me,  but also other parties.

Q:  Who else?  Who else, Minister?
                 
A:   I am personally in court, taken to court.       

Q:  You are referring to New York now, or are you in court anywhere else?                                

A:  I wouldn't want to go further based on the President's ruling.  I don't understand whether  I should talk about New York, based on his --               

Q:  I am not going to ask you any questions  about the New York proceedings.  Are you in court anywhere else, personally?                                  

A:   Not that I know of.                             

Q:  So, have I got this right?  You haven't made a public statement telling this story because  you have been advised that it could be damaging to the government's case in this arbitration and to you personally.  That is what you are saying, isn't it?
      
A: Otherwise it could be damaging. There is  a Confidentiality Agreement. It could be damaging.

      
Q:  Now, you talked, when you started this morning, about trust and confidence. I would like to quote to you what the latest Standard & Poor  ratings research of the 17th of May 2007 and I am not applying to put it in, this is a public document, says this:

"Grenada's political environment is characterized by increasing political fragmentation. The general population's disillusionment with the policy implemented by the ruling party and the widespread perception of corruption in the higher echelons of power".
Now, you are in the higher echelons of power, aren't you?                                       

A:  I am the Deputy Prime Minister --                

Q:   Exactly. The only person in the government who is higher than you is the Prime Minister.              

A:  And the Head of State.                           

Q:  Yes, of course.  It is right, isn't it, that there is this perception?                                            

A:  I don't know.  I cannot say that.                

Q:  Really? Now, there is an inquiry going on in  Grenada at the moment about the Prime Minister's conduct in a certain matter, isn't there?  
             

MR. KING:  Mr. President, I am so sorry to interrupt again but it seems to me that we are  so terribly far afield now.  Are we going to talk about allegations -- we now have a sort of veiled bribery allegation.  
Are we going to talk about the Prime Minister as well?  Is that relevant to any issue in this case whatsoever?        

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, we don't know  about this inquiry.  What inquiry is this?            

MR. MARRIOTT:  This is an inquiry into the Prime Minister's conduct involving a man called Resteiner. The relevance of these questions is  to the trust and confidence issue which my friend Mr. King led with this morning.  

Mr. PRESIDENT:  Does this inquiry have  anything to do with any issue in this  arbitration?   

MR. MARRIOTT:  No, it doesn't, but it does have to do with the trust and confidence issue.  Perhaps the Minister could leave the room again  if you wouldn't mind, sir, for one moment?  

MR. PRESIDENT:  Would you mind stepping  out again Mr. Bowen?  It is easier to clarify this in your absence.                                  

(Witness leaves the room)                     

MR. MARRIOTT:  What is being said in this case to you, and it was said again this morning, is that you have to decide to bring this relationship to an end, and you can decide that, of course, in one of two ways.   Either the government is liable to us or it isn't.      

    
Now, if you decide the government is liable to  us, you have got two choices.  You can either make a -- I don't want to go into the technicalities but you can either make a Crown  Proceedings Act declaration of specific performance, or you can award damages.

 What is being said is that you must declare the contract over, because the  necessary trust and confidence which the government must have isn't there.

Now, first of all, that ignores the fact that governments come and go. Sovereign states, on the whole, don't.  Secondly, it justifies asking questions about exactly who these people are who don't have the trust and confidence.  

This Minister is one. He said so. The Prime Minister is -- and between them they are the two most senior Ministers, and they control this effort,  because they are -- he's in charge of the oil and gas.  He says so.  Been in charge of it  since the end of '95.

 It goes to the question of whose trust and  whose confidence.  Now, the allegations against the  Prime Minister, which are being investigated by a one man commission appointed by the government, I think, or maybe the Governor-General, it looking into the Prime Minister's  conduct.

It has got nothing to do with this case.  Let me be plain about that.  Now, if you tell me that you don't want to go there, as my eldest granddaughter would say, I, of course, accept that.                            

Mr. PRESIDENT:  Just help us with the name of this commission or inquiry you gave me just  now.                                                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  I have it in my press cutting folder.  I will not tell you what it is about, I mean it is publicly available information but I don't want to tell us what it is about until you decide whether this line of questioning is acceptable.                           

MR. PRESIDENT:  It doesn't matter for present purposes, but the next question may be relevant.
                                          
MR. MARRIOTT:  Well, I do have the name.  It is probably way down the back.  (Pause)  Will you take it from me for the moment,  while I ask one of my colleagues to help me,  that my understanding is that there is an  inquiry, a one-man inquiry in Grenada which is  looking at -- yes.  I am so sorry.   I am reading from the press release of  June 2nd, 2007, a few days ago, in, "Grenada  Today", which is a newspaper in Grenada, and  I am reading from the Internet edition:  

"Dr. Mitchell is being investigated by  a one-man commission set up by Governor General  Sir Daniel Williams following allegations that  he accepted US$500,000 from Resteiner as  a bribery payment for a diplomatic posting.           
After a lengthy break to hear legal arguments the Richard Cheltenham Commission is due to resume sometime in July".                             

MR. PRESIDENT:  Did you say, "Richard Sheldon"?                                              

MR. MARRIOTT:  Richard Cheltenham is what I read here.                                         

MR. PRESIDENT:  Does that impugn in any way the Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Bowen?  Is he  being investigated?                                   

MR. MARRIOTT:  I don't know at this moment.                                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  Do your questions in relation to this inquiry relate to the credit of this witness in any way?                           

MR. MARRIOTT:  It relates to the allegation which is being made, that not only  does he lack the necessary trust and confidence, but the government lacks it, and the two people who effectively in the government run this are the Prime Minister and  Bowen.                                              

MR. PRESIDENT:  Does this inquiry impugn Mr. Bowen in any way?                                 

MR. MARRIOTT:  I don't know that because  -- I have no idea what is going to come out  of this inquiry, any more than I have any idea  what is going to come out from the New York proceedings.

 I don't know.  I am not making allegations against Bowen today, nor would I. It is not part of my case, and it would be improper of me to do it, and I shall not, that he and the Prime Minister are in cahoots over Resteiner, or that he benefitted in some way.

We are not here, in my submission, to decide whether the allegations against the  Prime Minister are true, any more than we are here today to decide whether the corruption  allegations against this Minister, which have  been floating around in Grenada for a long time are true.

I am not asking you to make that  kind of judgment.  I couldn't possibly ask you  to do that. What I am asking you to do is to take certain things into account, and I would not actually have gone into this question of the Prime Minister but for the fact that Mr. King  so obviously thought that the trust and               confidence issue of the government was so critical to his case that he had Mr. Bowen spend ten minutes making what at times sounded like a party political broadcast to try to convince you that the government had absolutely no trust and confidence.

Well, members of the Tribunal, trust and confidence is a two-way street, as he himself  recognised, and I think we are entitled to ask him questions about the Prime Minister's  position, but if you don't feel that I should,  then I will pass on.          

MR. PRESIDENT:  Just wait a moment.  I am sorry.  Mr. Marriot, we would ask you not to proceed down this particular line of       cross-examination.                                    

MR. MARRIOTT:  Then I obviously will not.        

MR. PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.             

MR. MARRIOTT:  May I make it plain that  I am not making any reservations about that  decision.  I fully understand it.                     

MR. PRESIDENT:  Let's have Mr. Bowen back.       

(Witness returns to the room)                   

If we can just ask you, we are not pressing you in any shape or form --                  

MR. MARRIOTT:  No.  I shall not be much longer.                                               

MR. PRESIDENT:  Again, thank you for  waiting, Mr. Bowen.  We are now about to resume.  When is the next election in Grenada, Mr. Bowen?                                            

A:  Constitutionally due 2009, March, but as the system is, it could be at any day tomorrow,  anyway.                                                    

Q:  When you and the Prime Minister think you can win it?                                               
If the answer to that question was,  "No", then you would destroy your credibility as  a politician!                                              

A:  And there are so many others trying to ensure this, you know.                                     

Q:   Now, Minister, you told us at the outset, I think, of the somewhat precarious financial  position of Grenada.                                       

A:  Yes, particularly after the hurricanes, yes.                                                       

Q:   We can go if we want to into the figures, but would you explain to the Tribunal how, or whether, if there was a substantial award of damages against you in this case, Grenada would pay?

MR. KING:  Mr. Chairman, Mr. President,  I am sorry, I think it is, again, highly irregular to ask a witness how he's planning to pay a hypothetical damages award that we, of course, submit will never be issued.                  

MR. PRESIDENT:  Mr. Marriot, how is that question relevant?                                    

MR. MARRIOTT:  It is relevant to part of the discussion we had a moment ago, but I am  content to make the obvious point on the  documents.                                            

MR. PRESIDENT:  Maybe it is a point for submission rather than cross examination of this witness.  You are, of course, free to do that.                                                 

MR. MARRIOTT:  That cuts the questioning  down even more.  We are making very good progress.  Minister, you were made the head, I think,  of the negotiating team at the end of 1995.           
That's right, isn't it?                              

A:  The timing might be incorrect, we could refresh our memories, but I think it may be in 1996.       

Q:  Presumably you saw, at about that time, the proposed contract that Mr. Auguste had received  from Grynberg towards the end of November 1995?             

A:  I would have seen it, but the timing, again, may ...                                             

Q :  Had you ever seen the model contract which the Commonwealth Secretariat had produced for Grenada?                                                    

A:  Much later.                                     

Q:  What about the Petroleum Act, had you studied that?
                                                 
A:  Yes, I have seen the Petroleum Act.              

Q:  Was that when you got this appointment, or was that later as well?                                   

A:  Maybe a bit later.                               

Q:  The draft regulations?                          

A: All of those would have (been) studied about the same time.                                                 

Q:  It is right that you met Mr. Grynberg  almost at the end of 1995 when he came to Grenada?          

A: That is incorrect.                               

Q:  When did you first meet Mr. Grynberg?            

A:  Monday, at the opening of this hearing.          

Q:  We have an agenda for Mr. Grynberg's visit, which shows you as having an appointment with him arranged by the Finance Ministry on Thursday, 28th of December at 10 o'clock.  Are you saying that meeting didn't take place?                                 

A:  That meeting did not take place. I could point out that there were other persons who were not on the agenda who were met, so the agenda is certainly not a factual indication of what happened.                               

Q:   But you certainly -- somebody in the Finance Ministry, the Permanent Secretary, thought  that you should see Mr. Grynberg on that day because they made an appointment.                                  

A:  That may be so.  Obviously, with my overseeing Mr. Auguste, it would have been in line,  but it did not take place.                                 

Q:  Didn't take place?  And you have never met him?                                                     

A:  First time I have seen him, as I have indicated, was at the beginning of this Tribunal.  I was looking forward to seeing exactly the person.        

Q:  So you never saw him in September 1996 in Grenada?                                                   

A:  I did not see him, and he did not come to Grenada in 1996.                                            

Q:    How do you know the last bit?                   

A:   Oh, remember, I am accused of this very cause, and it was well researched by the competent authorities.                                              

Q:  As to whether he had been in Grenada at that time?                                               

A:  Exactly.                                         

Q:  I see.  Now, you were familiar with the force majeure clause in Grynberg's proposal of late  November 1995.                                             

A:  Subsequent to it being introduced and discussed, yes, I am familiar with it, yes.                

Q:  You participated in examining the  agreement on behalf of the government?                     

A:  I participated, yes.                             

Q:  And it is right, isn't it, that the force majeure clause in the agreement Grynberg put in in November 1995 is the same as the force majeure clause in the 4th of July agreement, isn't it?  We established this with Mr. Auguste yesterday.              

A:   Well, if that is correct I wouldn't --           

Q:   Have a look at it.  You find the agreement itself, Minister, in Volume 1 of the Core Bundle of the exhibits, if Mr. Rosenthal would give you that, and turn upright to the very end at page 323, and the force majeure clause is at page 350.

The model  agreement -- sorry, the draft agreement. Look at   that. That is at page 16 of this same bundle, and  the page for the force majeure is 43.  Check it by all means, but you can take it from me that it is the same.                       

A:  If the first one is assumed to be a draft  from Mr. Grynberg, as I see no cover page, that assumption is established, this, and the signed  agreement, yes, they are the same, as I see no cover  page on the first one to say exactly what it is, and we have the draft model agreement.  

Q: Thank you. The Tribunal can take into account what it has heard on the provenance of these documents, but it is right, isn't it, that in around around the middle of May of 1996 you asked for a time limit on the operation of the force  majeure --
                                             
MR. PRESIDENT:  Are you looking for a document, Mr. Bowen?                                

A: The one he has just said.  I thought he had mentioned, Mr. President, the Commonwealth  draft, but he didn't show it to me.                        

MR. MARRIOTT:  I did mention the  Commonwealth draft, but we have established,  and the model agreement is at page 103 of this bundle, and the force majeure clause in that,  in the first three paragraphs, one, two, three,  was taken over with minor change of the time limit into the final agreement, first going           
into --   
                                           
MR. PRESIDENT:  191, if you are looking  for it.                                              

MR. MARRIOTT:  I don't think we need to  worry about that for the moment because  Mr. Auguste has given evidence about it, and we can read the documents.  
My question to you was; in about the  middle of May, you wanted to establish a time limit for the operation of that force majeure clause, didn't you?                                  

A:  424, yes at the time, but we will have to check around it.                                           

Q:  Could you have a look at the same bundle, page 313?  This is a fax of the 15th of May 1996 from Flaxman to the two Bristols, father and son.
You see that he starts by saying: "As I reported by 'phone today I spoke with Senator Bowen who announced that Cabinet had agreed the principle there should be no import duties on consumables used (for) exploration development and production.  
He said that further only the language is yet to be agreed..."                 
Do you remember that?  Shaking the head (Mr. Bowen) doesn't come on the transcript, I am afraid. You do remember that?                                    

A:  Yes.  I have no reason to doubt it.              

Q:  In the next paragraph: "A second point of discussion was that the Senator was uncomfortable with the force majeure clause that has no time limit.  He wishes to establish a time limit.  No figure was mentioned". Do you see all that?                        

A:  Yes, I see all that.                            

Q:  It is right, isn't it, that you took the view that there had to be a time limit for the force majeure in 24.4.                                           

A: There should be a time limit in force majeure, yes.                                              

Q:   You wanted a time limit of three years.          

A:  No. I cannot say the time limit that I wanted.                                                 

Q:   Are you sure about that?                        

A:  I wanted a time limit but I cannot confirm -- I have seen the three years, but I cannot confirm that it was three years or two years, whatever the case may be.                                 

Q:  What was going to happen in your view, what did you want to happen in your view, when the time limit expired, but the force majeure stayed?          

A:  In my view, there must be some action and resolution pre-planned.  For example, we have here that the fall in the price of petroleum could be a force majeure, which means that the company could cease the operation, whatever market Grenada has would be lost.  
Something that is allowing somebody to operate, maybe make a smaller profit after a certain period, with that person coming back, and maybe you giving them a little stake after.  
There are many arrangements that could be made, but again, putting a time limit will ensure that something is done.                                                    

Q:  What is the effect?  Are you saying that you wanted the agreement to come to an end on the expiration of the time limit if the force majeure still existed?                                             

A:  Not necessarily. This could be one of the conditions.  If it cannot be lifted then this would be a logical conclusion.  It could come to an end or something else could be done.                             

Q:  But we know that you made the proposal to plaques plan that if a force majeure situation existed for more than three years, then any agreement or license is terminated.  Do you remember that?                                                     

A:  No, I cannot.  Please refresh.                   

Q : You don't remember that?                         

A:   No.  I would like to see it.  No. I don't remember it.  That I was asking for a time in general to force majeure.                                  

Q:  That wasn't, in fact, accepted, was it?        

A:  The time limit?                                

Q:  Hmm. The time limit.                             

A:  The time limit was -- no -- not accepted.        

Q:  What you then said, take a look, please, at 315 in the same bundle, you were insisting there in the second or third paragraph that there must be a restriction on the time limit, and then you say you had intimated that there is a fixed sum to be used (for) exploration and border delimitation.  
To remove the time limit from force majeure you should agree to fund a completion, the boundaries delimitation process, as required by the government as separately and distinctly from the exploration commitment.
That was the deal you were offering as at the 28th of May.  Is that right?                                       

A:  That was -- yes.                                

Q:  We get the response to that, if you go over the page, to 317.  There is a letter from Flaxman to you.  Just go to the bottom paragraph:

"We have suggested that up to US$400,000 of the initial exploration commitment may be used to reimburse government and our expenditures in the border delineation process subject to the terms and conditions set forth in our written offer to the government dated December 29th, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto.  
"In addition, we verbally agreed that we would supply a personnel, legal team and contacts to obtain the best benefits for Grenada, either through negotiation or the International Court of Justice.  We can add this paragraph to the attached Side Letter dated December 29th, 1995".                                             
Did you see the Side Letter of the 29th of December, 1995?  Did you see the letter?

A:  I can't recall.                                 

Q:  You tell us that you didn't (see) the letter that Senator (Patrick) Bubb signed on the 18th of July, 1996?

A:  No, I did not see that letter in the early stage at all.                                              

Q:  Would it surprise you to know that that letter of the 18th of July 1996 is almost identical to the letter of the 29th of December 1995?                

A:  It certainly -- well, I don't know. I haven't seen the letter at all.                          

Q:  Just to be clear about this, you don't think you saw, and you cannot remember the 29th of December letter, 1995, and you didn't see the letter that Senator Bubb signed?                                

A: Until very late.                                

Q:  So you have really no knowledge of those two letters.  That's right, isn't it?                     

A:  I have knowledge of the 18th of July 1996                                                   

Q:  At the time?                                   

A:  No.  At the time, no.                          

Q:   I am moving to a different topic, Minister, and I shall not be much longer. Can you have a look at -- there are too many documents in this case but not necessarily the ones that matter -- let's have a look, please,  at Volume 3 of the Core Bundle of exhibits at page 589.  You saw that letter, didn't you.                     

A: Yes, I did.                                      

Q:  When?

A:  Some time after.

Q:  If you look at page 3, you are on the fax list.  Is that your fax number, 473-440-4122?            

A:  Yes.                                             

Q:  That would have come through to you --       

A: Well, I don't know if this came through to me.                                                 

Q:  You don't know if it came through?

A:  No.  What I do know is that I saw this letter.   

Q:  I am told, yes, if you look at the bottom of the next page, it doesn't come through to you, it goes to the Prime Minister, but it also, I gather went to you by courier so can we assume you saw it within a matter of days of the Prime Minister getting it by fax?

A: That is a possibility I cannot confirm. With it would have been passed to me by him.

Q:  But it is a pretty important letter, isn' it, in the sense that it is telling the Prime Minister all about the boundary issues and what RSM intends to do.

A: It is an important letter.

Q:  What did you and the Prime Minister decide to do about it?

A:  Well, he would have passed it to me to deal with it, together with the Legal department.

Q:  Did you discuss it with the Prime Minister?                                             

A:  Well, the result?                                

Q:  No.  Did you discuss what you ought to do about the letter with the Prime Minister?

A:  I think I indicated in my response that it was passed to me for handling, and that the Legal department and myself would have worked, and I don't know that the Prime Minister would not have gone against the recommendation.

Q:  What was the recommendation

A:  Well, the recommendation, it could be summed up in my response, that no license was applied for or issued and therefore it is not in our cause to collect any monies.                               

Q:  Minister, I am not asking you about the legal effect of the letter of the 12th of January, 2004.  That is -- if anything turns on it, that is for the Tribunal, but what you are being told, or the Prime Minister is being told, is that RSM is -- because we will look at the third paragraph on the second page:

"Because we are now confident that we can proceed on our license offshore Grenada .....we are invoking the force majeure and attaching our cheque for payment of the first year's rental in accordance with the License Agreement terms".

Now, what Grynberg is telling you is, "I want to get on with this". Grynberg is telling the Prime Minister, "I want to get on with this". Now, you told us that you were absolutely fed up with Grynberg, that you didn't trust him and you didn't feel that you wanted him to explore and produce oil and gas in Grenada.  That's right, isn't it?

A:  At that point in time, yes, we thought, certainly, from after learning so much, that it would be very difficult, yes.

Q:  But you don't write back to Gryn(berg) and say, "I am terribly sorry Grynberg, but this agreement is over.  We don't want you", do you?  

A:  Well, you have to understand that --  

Q:  Answer my question, Minister. You don't write back and say that, do you?

A: We don't write back and say that, but we wrote back.

Q:  Instead, on the 19th of February, 2004, page 602 of the same bundle, you write this:

"Thank you for your letter of the 12th of January addressed to the Prime Minister. I have passed your letter to my Legal Department to advise on the agreement and the effect of the force majeure.  Once I receive this advice I will respond in detail.  
"However, for the time being, please note that no license has been issued to RSM and as such your company has no authority to conduct any activities within Granadian waters".

Now, the reality, Minister, at that time is that you had no intention of granting him a license, had you?

A:  That is not the primary content of that letter --

Q:  It doesn't say that at all, Minister, but my question is; at that time, you had no intention of granting him a license.  That's right, isn't it?  

A:  That is not so.

Q:  You considered yourself at that time bound  by the July 4 agreement?                                   

A:  Again, that is what the legal --
               
Q: I am not asking you were you legally bound by it, that is a matter for the Tribunal. I am  asking you whether you considered, as the  responsible Minister, that you were bound by the agreement of the 4th of July?  
                           
A:  Again, my Legal department would advise me on the answer to this question. That is why it was  passed to my Legal department to give such a response.
In particular, a letter from Mr. Grynberg at that particular point in time would not have been dealt by any person outside of legal          
experience because of what we had seen happening  before.
                                              
Q:  On the 27th of February he writes to the  Permanent Secretary, at 604.  Are you saying that the Permanent Secretary didn't get this letter on the 27th of February, 2004?             

A:  That is what I am saying.  According to  the documents we have, (the PS) did not get this letter on the 27th of February, 2004.  

Q:  Did he get it at all?                            

A: According to the documents, on the 14th of April 2004 is when he got this letter.                     

Q:   So you are saying that the Ministry got it on the 14th of April 2004?                                 

A:  Yes, that's correct.  
                          
Q:  Where had it been between the 27th of  February and the 14th of April, Minister?  
              
A: That I cannot answer you.  I have my own views but I cannot --                                       

Q:  Well, let's have them.  Tell us your own  views.                                                      

A:  As very speculative as they may be?               

Q:  Tell us.  We would like to know.  What do you think?
                                                                
A:  I can only think, I am not putting any weight or something like that, I believe it may have gone to perhaps his legal people in Grenada, and perhaps it was kept, as we had seen on another  occasion, delays, and again I am putting no truth to that in any event, it is just sitting here and you asked me.                                                  

Q:  You see, this is the first time, Minister,  it has ever been suggested, what you have just said.  
    
A:  I only got knowledge of this a very short while ago and I had to be thinking, you know, what could have happened?  So, as I said, I put no truth. It doesn't have to be like this.
If we are just asking ourselves, you know, what could have happened, or possibly it was just posted wrongly, is  another suggestion. Went on slow mail and came in  late again.

Q:  Well, I suggest to you that you got it, and you simply decided not to reply in detail at all and to wait and see what happened on the 90 days,  and if it didn't come in on time you would use that  as the basis for not giving the license.  

A: That is not so. That is not so at all.  I repeat, the only time I knew that this letter came in on the 14th was a couple of days ago.  Maybe a week or so before.  
I was always of the opinion that this came, went to the Ministry, because they were not dealing with these issues for many years,                    that it took a long-winded route, sat there for a while, and possibly could have been transferred  later.
Besides, it is not copied, so it would have taken them a long time.  That was my view before. I recognize, well, this thing came in on the 14th,  or possibly, you know, or possibly could he have called me and given it (to) me before?  
So there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that I knew I got  it and I sat on it.  Any letter, I said again, from Mr. Grynberg will be rushed to the Legal department.
     
Q:  Would you look at Core Bundle of exhibits Volume 2, page 360? It is to Mr. Flaxman to  Mr. Carter in the American Embassy in Grenada.  Do  you know Mr. Carter?  
                                    
A:  He should have been the Chargee d'Affairs  at one point.                                                                 

Q:  So quite a high-ranking US diplomat?             

A:  Who, from Grenada's standpoint, we certainly would hold him very high, not because of  his rank in the diplomatic circle, because it is  much lower than Ambassador, but for the mere fact that he represents a country so we will say that, yes.  Him, he would say no matter how low he is in the order, you would see the United States of  America.

Q:  "Max, the following news release from the Government Information Service as a leading local  news item this morning, exploration for oil and gas within Grenada's territorial water may begin soon, says Minister for works Senator Gregory Bowen.   
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Dr. The Honourable Keith Mitchell signed an agreement with RSF Production Corporation of Texas, USA, for such exploration to take place.
Leader of the government's team for boundary delimitation, Senator Gregory Bowen says that the agreement was signed  under authority of the Petroleum Act of 1989.
Senator Bowen says discussions are underway towards making out a distinct line to separate Grenada from Venezuela and Grenada from Trinidad.  Once this is  done, oil and gas exploration should start soon  afterwards".
Now, is it my understanding of your  evidence that you have never seen that?                                  

A:  That is so.                                      

Q:  Are you saying that you made a search of the Government Information Service's files and they cannot find it?   
                                         
A:  That is so.                                     

Q:  What is your speculation about Mr. Carter as to yes should have written that?                        

A:  I don't know.  I would not speculate.  He  said it was a leading news item, and I would intend  to say that perhaps it was not.                             

Q:  Would you quarrel with the fact that  Mr. Carter, the American Charge d'Affairs in  Grenada says this, the same day?                           

A:  Would I quarrel?                                 

Q:   Yes.  Do you believe that that is what  Mr. Carter said?
                                                   
A: I would not doubt that is what he said.  

Q:  Thank you very much.  Just give me a moment, if you would.           I want to deal with a couple more matters quickly.       
The first thing is about Mr. Williams and Mr Bailey      
Do you know of whom I am speaking, Minister?               

A:  Yes.                                          

Q:  Who are they?                 

A:  Mr. Williams is an American citizen and Mr Bailey, I think they are both American citizens,  but Mr Bailey is the Chief Executive Officer, possibly the owner, of Global Network Providers.

Q:  What did you do with them?  What did you make with them, Minister?         

A:  We asked them to provide --  

Q:  Who is, "We"? You or somebody else?

A:   No.  No.  No.  We the Ministry, the government.                                           
     
Q:   Did you personally do this?                   

A:   Personally?  Maybe effected, but we certainly as a government asked them to provide information on what is there in our waters, because  we were negotiating with Venezuela.  Venezuela apparently, and I believe this, know exactly is in           our waters.  
We don't know what is in our waters,   and we were sitting round the table with them trying  to negotiate a boundary, which must provide forgive  and take, so if we know exactly where something is,   we could give up because there is nothing there, we  could give up, but obviously we will fight tremendously harder if we know where other things  are, and all the Professors in boundary negotiations were telling us that we need to have information to sit with Venezuela.
                                       
Q:  Did you know Mr. Williams and Mr. Bailey personally?                                               

A:  I know Mr. Bailey, I have met Mr. Williams  because Mr. Bailey would have been in Grenada but  Mr. Williams would come and go.                                   
Q:
 How long have you known about Bailey?   
    
A:  Maybe after the liberalization of the telecommunications sector so it would have to be  after 2000.                                                 

Q:  He's a telecoms man, is he?           

A:  He's a telecoms man, yes.           

Q: Were you ever a telecoms man in the   
government?                                              

A:   Responsible for telecommunications?              

Q:   You were responsible for telecoms as well,   because that is why you are the Minister of Works,  Communications & Public Utilities.                

A:  Public utilities.

Q:  When did Mr. Bailey raise with you the question of working in Grenada waters with respect to oil and gas?
                                              
A:   What I don't know is -- you put it working  with respect to oil and gas.  It could be deemed  that if we get the information, but I need to refresh my memory.  It would have to be after,  perhaps, 2000.

Q:  Did you enter into an agreement with Mr. Bailey or Mr. Williams or any company at that time with respect to conducting seismic, or any other form of inquiry or investigation?
 
A:  Yes.  They had permission to investigate,  so that we can get the information.  

Q:  You gave them permission under the  Petroleum Act, presumably?  
                       
A: That would be correct.                   

Q:  Did they pay the government any money?           

A:  What is required I don't know, but I assume they would have been paid whatever the small fee was.
                                             
Q:  So in your view, anybody can come along  and ask you to go and conduct investigatory work for  oil and gas in your waters on payment of a small  fee?                                                       

A:  And provide us with the information.           

Q:  Give you the information?                       

A:  Yes.                                            

Q:  I see.                                        
    
A:  Or we could pay somebody to do it, if we will get somebody that could do it and provide us with the information, fine.                                 

Q:  Now, Mr. Jimmy Bristol, who gave evidence here, it seems a long time ago now but I think it  was Monday, or something, wrote you a letter which  is at page 411 of the Volume 2 of the Core Bundle of  exhibits.  Could you just take a look at that?               Jimmy Bristol told us he had been at school with  you.  Is that right?         

A:  Yes, at a lower form.  I may have taught him at the end.                                            

Q:  I am sure he learned very well, Minister.  Would you read the letter?  You see,   you had a conversation with Mr. Bristol outside  Parliament, and he says that same day, and then he  writes you this letter, and draws attention to the third paragraph, that it is a breach of the agreement with RSM, and he sends you Annex A to the agreement, and then he sets out various things which  RSM has done, and says he's quite:   "Our client is quite surprised (bottom of 412) by the latest move by the government  of Grenada to license Mr. Williams because indeed in  November 2000 you indicated to our client that all           was going according to plan".  Do you see that?                           

A:  Yes, I see that.                                 

Q:   Now, first of all, is it true that in  November 2000 you indicated to RSM that all was going according to plan?                                 

A:  All could not be going according to plan  so I cannot confirm this at all.                         

Q:  You think Mr. Bristol has got that wrong?  

A:  Oh, he got that wrong.  This is his comment.                                                 

Q:   Did you reply to this letter, Minister?   Did you get it?                                      
A:  I have no reason to believe that I did not  get it.                                                 

Q:  The Prime Minister, did he get it?  He's copied.                                                  

A:   I don't know.                                  

Q:   Did you talk to the Prime Minister about this?                                                   

A:  No.                                           

Q:   So what did you do when you got it?               

A: When I got this letter, I do not know if it was before or after, and Mr. Bailey may have already been contacted and/or sued, but we really indicated exactly, to Mr. Bailey, or reaffirmed to       him, and he knew well that he was not granted a license, and what he had to do was expend these funds to bring information to us, and I think that was made very clear.  If it were not clear to him it was made clear.                                       

Q:  Did you reply to the letter?                  

A:  I cannot say.  I do not see any response from this record, but I cannot say that I replied to it.                                                         

Q:  It is rather odd, isn't it, that someone  writes, someone you knew at July, who was a practicing lawyer, has a conversation with you outside the Parliament on the 17th of January, 2001,         he goes to the trouble of setting out what his  client's complaint is in a letter to you of the same day and he copies it to the Prime Minister and you  cannot remember whether you replied to it or not.        

A:  No.  I can't remember at this point in  time, 2001.  But I do know that there were lots of  other activities in respect of the suit by these --  these two gentlemen were sued.  They would have  contacted me anyway and they know fully well that they did not have a license.  I don't think they ever promoted that, and I don't think that they did  anything in any event, and we did not get the information that we needed for sitting down with            Venezuela.  So there may or may not have been  a response.                                                 

Q:  You see, you wrote to Mr. Bailey on the 7th of December 2000, and you told him: "If you can find investors who wish          to carry out explorations in waters which cannot be          challenged as being outside Grenada's jurisdiction,  i.e. approximately a 30-mile offshore limit, then we will be happy to receive a proposal on the exploration plan and revenue sharing in case viable wells are identified and developed.  Government will then decide whether the revenue sharing meets our satisfaction".                                        
That has got nothing to do with getting information for your negotiations with Venezuela, has it?  
Ask your lawyers to give you the letter, Minister, but that is what you told  Mr. Bailey.                                           

MR. PRESIDENT:  What reference is that, Mr. Marriot?                                         

MR. MARRIOTT:  It isn't in the bundle,  sir.                                                

MR. PRESIDENT:  Well, how can you refer to that document without producing it at least for a courtesy purpose?                                   

MR. MARRIOTT:  I can refer to it if I am given an explanation, which is patently at odds with something this witness has written, and I can remind him that he wrote a letter on that          date.  
I am perfectly entitled to do that. The ruling of yesterday does not stop me from doing that.                                               

MR. PRESIDENT:  Do you recall writing that letter?                                              

A:  Not -- 7th of December 2001?  No.  I would
not recall.                                                


MR. MARRIOTT: 7th of December 2000.

 

I would not recall at this point in time. That is why I need to refresh my ...

 

MR. KING: Mr. President, I am sorry, it is not about this, I wonder if we might be able to take a break at some point.

MR. PRESIDENT: Mr. Marriot, you said some time ago you hadn't much longer.

MR. MARRIOTT: No. I shall be a couple of minutes.

MR. PRESIDENT: Then proceed.

MR. MARRIOTT: Just give me one minute and we may save two or three.

Minister, thank you very much. I have nothing further.

MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Marriot.

Mr. King, with he may break now depending on how long your re-examination is.

MR. KING: I don't think it will be very long but I would appreciate having a break now for at least two reasons.

MR. PRESIDENT: Fifteen minutes for three reasons.

(11.42 am)

(BREAK)

 

(12.08 pm) 11:42:47

Re-examination by MR. KING: 11:42:47

MR. PRESIDENT: Let's resume, Mr. King. 12:07:57

MR. KING: Thank you very much, 12:08:00

Mr. President. Mr. Bowen, I just have a very few questions for you. The first one is; in addition to the Freshfields website, the quality of which I can vouch for myself, do you recall receiving a pitch document from Freshfields in or about August of 2005?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you believe that Minister Boatswain saw the financing agreement with GPG?

A I cannot say, "Yes", or, "No." Most likely he may have, but I think we could only assume so. I cannot say, "Yes", or, "No", to this.

Q Who has been making disbursements to the lawyers under the agreement?

A The Treasury of Grenada.

Q What is the relationship between that and the Ministry of Finance? A Yes, it is under the money industry of finance, yes.

Q Mr. Boatswain is the Minister of what?

A He's the Minister for finance.

Q What is your understanding, if you have one, Minister Bowen, of the reputation for litigation of Mr. Grynberg and his companies?

MR. MARRIOTT: That doesn't arise in the slightest out of the cross-examination of this witness. Not at all.

MR. KING: I have a follow-up question that may.

MR. MARRIOTT: Well, why don't you, if I may suggest through the Chairman, why don't we ask the follow-up question and not the leader?

MR. PRESIDENT: Let's start question by 14 question, Mr. King. Pursue with that question 15 then ask the next one and we will see where it 16 goes.

MR. KING: Thank you very much.

What is your understanding, Minister Bowen, if you have one, of the reputation of Mr. Grynberg and his companies for litigation?

A He's a very litigious character, an extremely large amount of litigation.

Q Does your reluctance to talk about the GPG financing arrangements have anything to do with that?

A Yes. It has a lot to do with that.

Q Why?

A Because –

MR. MARRIOTT: That is a leading question if ever I heard one.

MR. PRESIDENT: Mr. King, that was an extremely leading question. Be careful, because it is not that we will disallow it necessarily, it is just that it makes the answer without any evidential value for the Tribunal.

MR. KING: I apologize. It is my fault.

MR. MARRIOTT: It is just that it is perfectly legitimate in America.

MR. KING: Because I thought perhaps, at least as I was reading it, it was a little bit unclear, how long ago did you get a copy of the 27th of February, 2004 letter from the Ministry of Finance?

A Last week, when I was in London.

Q Did the copy that you received have a Ministry of Finance date stamp on it?

A Yes, it had the 14th of April, 2004 date stamp.

Q You were also asked in your cross-examination about Mr. Bailey and Mr. Williams. I just have one question for you about that. In January 2001 did RSM have a license?

A RSM did not have a license.

MR. KING: That is all I have, Mr. President.

MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Bowen, we have come to the end of your testimony. Thank you for coming to give to this Tribunal.

A You are welcome, sir.