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? &n
