Basil Williams contends that single-sourcing is an acceptable practice

…warns Auditor General about being a “minion” for PPP

By Lisa Hamilton
Former Attorney General, Basil Williams, S.C. has rejected the recent report of the Auditor General which concluded that legal procurement procedures were breached when the Attorney General’s Chambers, between 2015-2020, contracted attorneys and law firms for service in several cases.
According to the Auditor General’s report the Direct Contracting/Single Source method was used to award these contracts when, in contrast, the Procurement Act 2003 states that “public tendering is mandatory”.

The report also highlights that $170.8 million was spent on 71 contracts awarded to 26 Attorneys-at-Law/Law Firms/Agency and included the total sums for cases related to the no-confidence motion — $58M — as well as total contract costs for overseas lawyers.
When the question was put to the Former AG he reminded that the responsibility for the spending of government funds within the ministry lies within the ambit of the Permanent Secretary. However, even so, he contended that the retaining of a lawyer is not a matter that lends itself to public tendering.

“Single sourcing is one of the accepted approaches. I’m shocked to hear it is unlawful because, certainly, I’ve never seen in the 23 years of the PPP any public tendering for a lawyer to represent the PPP in any case or in any matter. They could supply the evidence of that,” Williams said.

Examining Cap. 73:05 of the Procurement Act 2003, Section 25(1) states: “Subject to subsection (2), public tendering is mandatory. For such tendering an invitation to tender or to prequalify, as applicable, is mandatory.”

However, Section 25(2) to which Section 25(1) is subject states: “A procuring entity may use a method of procurement other than tendering proceedings in accordance with sections 26 through 29…”

Section 26 allows for procurement by means of restricted tendering if the goods or services “are available only from a limited number of suppliers or contractors” and if “the estimated cost of the contract is below the threshold set forth in the regulations.”
Meanwhile, Section 29 allows for such “…in circumstances where procurement is conducted in poor remote communities, where the competitive procedures described in this Act are not feasible”.

Section 28 specifically outlines that single-source procurement can be engaged in if the goods/services are only available only from a particular supplier, contractor or source; of there is an emergency and other reasons.

Williams has put forward that the retaining of lawyers, local or overseas, via single-source procurement can fall within several of the exceptions outlined. Furthermore, he put forward that any Government has the right to outsource lawyers should it see the need as has been done by Nandlall in the past.

“In so far as there’s a suggestion that there could be some mischief or illegality or criminality in the award of such contracts and the outsourcing of such contracts to lawyers in this country and abroad, then I could take issue with that,” he said. “It has to be spurious in so far as Nandlall is suggesting to the Auditor General that it is unlawful to outsource cases. In the CARICOM region all Governments outsource cases.”

The Former Attorney General said that when he became Attorney General in 2015 he met evidence of numerous retainers given to lawyers outside of the Chambers while the Solicitor General, Deputy Solicitor General and other principal legal officers were present. He claimed that cases involving big judgments were outsourced by Nandlall and that there was no record kept for the Chambers leaving it blind-sighted on several occasions.

Added to this, Williams said that on some occasions the legal staff met at the Chambers proved not to be fully efficient in their duties, an issue he said was caused by Nandlall’s management.
“Mr. Nandlall is just making a mountain out of a molehill and I believe he is trying to infer some kind of criminality on me. But my antecedent shows clearly that I am not interested in pilfering State assets, the assets of the ordinary people in this country,” Williams said.

He continued: “I am challenging Mr. Nandlall for us to debate our stewardship of the Ministry of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Chambers. Let’s have a debate on it. He might be surprised to see other cases that he will have to account for.”

The Auditor General’s report had also highlighted that – in relation to the No-Confidence Motion – over $58M was spent. Nandlall has told the media that costs in relation to the no-confidence motion and the elections should have come from the APNU+AFC’s coffers. However, Williams disagrees.

He said that any Government has the right to defend itself in a no-confidence motion brought against it through controversial means. He also pointed out that no legal matters were filed by the AG’s Chambers under his stewardship after the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Williams said that legal services sought in relation to the elections were to allow for the representation of the AG in the matters, as expected once Constitutional issues are raised.