FORMER attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, has condemned the most recent statements by the Opposition on the A&V Oil arbitration award, insisting the UNC “did mislead the public” about the so-called “fake oil” scandal involving the lease operator and Petrotrin.
In a statement on Monday, Maharaj, lead counsel for A&V Oil and its chief executive officer Hanif Baksh, said he had a duty to respond to the Opposition’s statements on the issue.
On Sunday, at its weekly media briefing, the UNC denied misleading the public when it revealed the so-called scandal.
Pointe-a-Pierre MP David Lee said the laying of the 76-page report on the arbitration ruling between Petrotrin and A&V Oil, in the House of Representatives on Friday, did not put the facts on the public record as promised by the government and raised more questions.
Lee said Petrotrin’s move to terminate its contract with the oil company was not motivated by the whistleblower in 2017. He said the company had solid and reasonable reasons to support its decision.
Maharaj said the findings of the arbitrators were clear that A&V Oil did not supply “fake oil” to Petrotrin and did supply crude oil for which it was paid.
“The UNC, therefore, did mislead the public about this so-called ‘fake oil’ scandal. The judgment showed that the UNC did mislead the public,” he said in his statement on behalf of his clients.
Maharaj reminded of the origin of the “fake oil” allegation by UNC political leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar on a political platform on September 10, 2017, when she claimed A&V Oil was being paid for oil it never supplied.
He said it was the UNC leader who coined the “fake oil” term and also alleged A&V was “getting away with fraud and misconduct” because the lease operator was a financier of the People’s National Movement and Baksh was a close friend of the Prime Minister.
Maharaj said it was the statements of the UNC’s political leader that led Petrotrin to terminate its contract with A&V Oil.
To resolve the dispute, the parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration and in September, last year, the arbitrators ruled in favour of A&V Oil, holding Petrotrin wrongfully and unlawfully terminated the contract and the lease operator was entitled to compensation.
Petrotrin, after receiving advice, chose not to appeal the arbitration award or findings that A&V Oil did not engage in fraudulent activity and did have the capacity to produce the quantity of crude oil sold to the refinery.
“Based on the unanimous finding made by the panel of arbitrators, it is crystal clear that UNC did mislead the public when it accused A&V Oil of supplying fake oil to Petrotrin and of receiving payment for oil it did not supply,” Maharaj insisted.
He also called out Lee on his statements on Sunday, on his claim that arbitration was not a court of law.
Maharaj said not only were the UNC’s statements against his clients were totally false, frivolous and mischievous but Lee’s statements sought to undermine the fin
