– to cover legal fees in Guyana-Venezuela case, says Greenidge

NO part of the US$15M set aside by the Guyana government to pay the legal team representing it at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy has been used.

Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge during a media briefing at his office on Tuesday, said, “The decision of Cabinet was that US$15M of that amount was for the payment of the lawyers.”

The government received a US$18M signing bonus from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil in 2016 and that money has since been placed in an Escrow account at the Bank of Guyana. The US$15M of that amount has been allocated to pay for legal services related to the ICJ case.
Late last month, Minister of State Joseph Harmon told reporters at a post-Cabinet press briefing that the signing bonus received from ExxonMobil will be placed in the Consolidated Fund at an appropriate time.

He said the signing bonus represents money that belongs to Guyana and will not be used to pay anyone, unless deposited into the Consolidated Fund.
“That bonus, wherever it is, will be placed into the Consolidated Fund and it is from that fund that any team whatsoever would be paid; whether they work before or after, it is from the Consolidated Fund these funds will come from,” said Harmon.
Guyana two weeks ago submitted its application to the ICJ requesting the court to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Arbitral Award regarding the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

However, Greenidge told reporters that while the Cabinet has agreed for the US$15M to be utilised for the payment of legal and associated fees, that sum may very well be insufficient. That however, is dependent on the work to be done by the legal team.
“So the US$15M may not be adequate; the US$15 may be more than is needed for the moment that is, what it is. The Cabinet’s decision was that, as the need arises each year, the money will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund from the Special Account in which it is held to meet the estimated expenditure on the lawyers.”

Greenidge explained that though Guyana has submitted its application to the ICJ, citizens need to understand that the entire process could take as much as six years. As such, to quantify the amount government is likely to spend on the process would be mere speculation at this stage.

“As I said to you, the process could take anywhere between two to six years and in those circumstances it is not possible for me to say to you, this is what it will cost; I can’t tell you that. I don’t know. The lawyers themselves don’t know, because they don’t know what they will be called upon by the court to do,” the foreign affairs minister stated.

Given the aforementioned, when necessary, Finance Minister Winston Jordan will approach the National Assembly requesting supplementary funds for the payment of those who provide services. Meanwhile, Greenidge cautioned that while an application has been made to the ICJ on the matter, the process can be a long one.

“It is a long process, difficult process… this is the first time that a referral to the court has gone from the secretary-general in this way,” he said, while noting that the court will hold public hearings and so the public would be privy to those.

The minister made it clear that Guyana has to be very careful in how it treats with the matter as if there is a breach of protocol, it could be found in contempt of court; something he said Guyana cannot afford.

He explained that the ICJ may refrain from hearing the case put before it by Guyana if it is found that it has no jurisdiction to hear the matter or that there is an established mechanism by which the matter before it has been addressed. There are however, other circumstances that could result in the court refusing to hear the matter.
TRICKY
“We as a people are at a point that is a little tricky. Yes, the matter is before the court. We have to fight the matter before the court – what comes out of the court will depend upon what we do and what Venezuela does,” said Greenidge.

The minister noted that while Venezuela’s position on the matter is unclear, the ICJ has already invited the country to respond to Guyana’s application. Once the ICJ goes ahead with hearing the case, Guyana will be called to submit further arguments in support of its contention. Venezuela will be given an opportunity to respond.

Guyana in its application to the ICJ dated March 29, 2018 has requested the court among other things to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the award regarding the boundary between British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela of October 3, 1899.
Additionally, Guyana called on the court to declare that Guyana enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement; that Venezuela should immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of Ankoko Island, and every other territory recognised as Guyana’s and to have Venezuela refrain from threatening or using force against any person, company licensed by Guyana to engage in economic or commercial activities in Guyana’s territory.

Guyana also wants to declare Venezuela as responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.
“Pursuant to the Treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of Venezuela, signed February 2, 1897 at Washington, the 1899 Award was ‘a full, perfect, and final settlement’ of all questions relating to determining the boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and Venezuela,” Guyana’s application states.

Further, Guyana contends that between November 1900 and June 1904, an Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission identified, demarcated and permanently fixed the boundary established by the 1899 Award. On January 10, 1905, the commissioners signed a joint declaration and accompanying maps in accordance with the 1899 Award.

“At all times following the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, until the independence of Guyana in 1966, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepted that the Award and the Agreement finally settled all territorial claims and permanently fixed the land boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela.”

Guyana argues that at all times since its independence in May 1966, it has accepted the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement as valid and legally binding on both Guyana as successor to the United Kingdom and Venezuela, and that the boundary has always been and remains that which was fixed by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement.

“For its part, between 1899 and 1962, Venezuela consistently and repeatedly expressed its unconditional acceptance of the legal validity and binding force of the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, and respected the boundary with British Guiana that was fixed thereby,” Guyana’s application states.

CHANGE OF POSITION
However, Venezuela changed its position in 1962, as the United Kingdom was making final preparations for the independence of British Guiana.

“Sixty-three years after the 1899 Award was issued, Venezuela formally asserted for the first time that the Award was ‘arbitrary’ and therefore ‘null and void’,” Guyana stated while noting that Venezuela threatened not to recognise the new state, or its boundaries unless the United Kingdom agreed to set aside the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement and cede to it (Venezuela) all of the territory west of the Essequibo River which was awarded to British Guiana in 1899.

Negotiations between the UK and Venezuela led to an agreement to resolve the controversy between the two countries. That agreement was signed at Geneva on February 17, 1966 and is referred to as the Geneva Agreement. It provides for recourse to a series of dispute-settlement mechanisms to finally resolve the controversy. Guyana acceded to the Geneva Agreement after gaining independence on May 26, 1966.

Guyana and Venezuela had for more than 50 years after signing the Geneva Agreement failed to resolve the controversy. “Throughout this period, until the present day, Guyana’s sovereignty, security, and development have been jeopardised by Venezuela’s refusal to recognise the long-settled boundary, and its claim to more than two=-thirds of Guyana’s land territory, which is home to more than one-quarter of Guyana’s population.

Guyana maintains that Venezuela has never produced evidence to justify its “belated repudiation of the 1899 Award”. By virtue of the Geneva Agreement, which authorises the UN Secretary-General to decide which means of dispute settlement must be employed to end the controversy, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres determined that the Good Offices Process failed to achieve a peaceful settlement of the controversy. Between 1990 and January 2018, Guyana has been involved in several processes, all of which failed.
Nearly 52 years after the signing of the Geneva Agreement, the SG decided that the controversy shall be settled by the ICJ.