A Supreme Court judge yesterday refused to approve the request made by the attorney for the Save Guana Cay Association (SGCA) for access to certain crucial documents in the possession of the government and developers relating to the approval of the controversial Baker’s Bay project.
Acting Justice Norris Carroll also denied a request made by attorney Frederick Smith for the cross examination of witnesses, including developers who filed affidavits in the case prior to the hearing.
The judge also ruled that the developers will be included as respondents in the action. Prior to that decision, government officials had been the only respondents in the case involving the Association’s bid to permanently block the development in its present form.
The proceedings were heard before a large crowd, including 30 of the 90 employees of the Baker’s Bay development. Resident who continue to fight the development were also present.
The Association’s attorney said the government respondents – Prime Minister Christie, nor Cabinet Secretary Wendal Major – had any legal authority to enter into the heads of agreement without due process, and therefore, the agreement cannot be binding.
He added that the 150 acres of Crown and Treasury Land held in trust cannot be given to any development company as private property for its profit nor can rights, concessions or grants be given to the developers.
As such, he argued that the heads of agreement is null and void, and insisted that heads of agreement should approved by parliament.
Explaining the “due process”, he said when the government wishes to enter an agreement it goes to parliament and ask for certain concessions and approvals.
Mr. Smith said the government sought to sidestep Article 15 of the Constitution, which states the need for due process, respect for the law and the rule of law in the country.
The article stipulates the entitlement of every person to freedom subject to rights of life, liberty, security and protection of the law, he pointed out.
Mr. Smith said the article allows for civil relations, which everyone, including the cabinet, must abide by.
The Association’s attorney also claimed that the authority of the National Economic Council to approve such projects does not exist in law.
He further claimed that Mr. Major under law does not have the power to contract legal agreements; neither does any such contract have the power to confer benefits, or grant leases.
Mr. Smith sought to justify what he claimed were “irrational decisions” made by the government as it relates to the Guana Cay project.
He said the developers are not paying taxes, and the Treasury does not benefit. It’s why Mr. Smith objects to the developers being granted Crown Land.
Mr. Smith said it is irrational to say it will be helpful to the economy when the $500 million project cannot be supported by Bahamian labour or material.
Claiming that the government did not bother to perform an economic impact study, he said officials made an “irrational decision as [the study] is amazingly absent.”
Mr. Smith said the heads of agreement does not outline the minimum number of Bahamians to be employed and added that although the agreement mentions “up to 200 persons sometime in the next 10 years” it is “a vacant promise”.
Mr. Smith finally pointed to the environmental aspects of the development, insisting that it would destroy the eco-system of Guana Cay, located in the Abacos.
The judge adjourned the matter to Tuesday when the prosecution is expected to present its case.
By: Daphne McIntosh, The Bahama Journal
