ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has disclosed that the government is currently assessing an “amicable” repayment proposal from the Panamanian government which aims to resolve the flawed rice deal that was made under the former APNU+AFC administration.

Nandlall made this announcement during a press conference, on Monday, where he explained that the proposed resolution seeks to address the financial turmoil and legal disputes surrounding the outstanding $US7 million that is owed to the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB).

He explained that under the APNU+AFC administration, a trade agreement was established with the Panamanian government, covering the supply of approximately 9,000 tonnes of rice through the GRDB.

However, the deal lacked adequate payment terms and safeguards, leading not only to financial challenges but legal battles for the GRDB.

Upon assuming office, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, committed to recovering the outstanding monies.

However, various attempts, including diplomatic channels through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, were unsuccessful.

To address the non-payment issue, Nandlall explained that the Guyana Government resorted to legal avenues, instituting proceedings at the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Centre in Washington DC.

Nandlall revealed that the legal process necessitated substantial financial commitments, with over US$150,000 expended in legal fees to date. The proceedings aim to compel Panama to honour the supply contract and settle the outstanding debt.

Despite the initiation of legal proceedings, the Attorney General highlighted a positive development in the form of negotiations with the Panamanian government.

He explained that His Excellency, President Dr. Irfaan Ali, intervened, facilitating discussions for an amicable resolution to the matter.

“Fortunately, the Panamanian government through intervention at the level of …the President has agreed to come to the table to discuss an amicable resolution of this matter…Of course, any compromise of legal proceedings requires both sides to give up something,” Nandlall pointed out.

In light of the challenges, the Panamanian government has presented a repayment proposal to the Guyanese government.

“Based upon the proposals we have received, which we are actively considering, Guyana may have to forgo the interest that would have accrued on the debt. The interest is almost the same size or larger than the principal now having regard to the length of time that the monies took to repay,” he said.

Nandlall stated that the proposal is currently under consideration.

“Negotiations are still ongoing as we conclude very shortly, but central to the conclusion will be whether negotiation is taking place.

“Guyana being paid, whatever sum we agree to, even if it’s only the principal that is US$7 million which is due and owing to the rice farmers of our country and has been due and owing for over seven years,” he said.

Nandlall explained that the acceptance of the proposed settlement would potentially bring closure to the protracted issue, offering relief to the rice farmers who have awaited payment for an extended period.

However, he explained that the government remains vigilant in ensuring that any settlement is fair and adequately addresses the financial challenges faced by the GRDB.

Rice millers were forced to file legal proceedings in the High Court against the GRDB to have the agency pay monies for the rice sold to the Panamanian government under the coalition government.

In a recent court case, High Court Judge Gino Persaud ordered the GRDB to pay Vilvoorden Investment Inc. $US 77,000 ($16.2 million) for the unpaid rice exports, which had shed light on the flawed deal struck by the APNU+AFC administration in 2018.

In another case, GRDB had to pay US$308,620.03 ($65.2 million) to Golden Fleece Rice Investment over the same issue.

In those cases, the GRDB had cited a “pay-when-paid” clause in the contract as a justification for their non-payment.

However, Justice Gino Persaud, in his ruling on both cases, deemed this clause to be unspecific and ambiguous.

“The respondent cannot rely on the pay-when-paid clause since the clause is unspecific and ambiguous. Moreover, the applicant completed its obligation under the contract four years ago. Thus, the applicant is entitled to be paid within a reasonable time for the rice supplied,” the judge said.

The PPP/C government was left to foot the legal bill due to the actions of APNU+AFC.