St.
George's Grenada, February 19th,
2010: The New National Party
welcomes the strong decision against
Grynberg and awaits the other two
outcomes as the then opposition
National Democratic Congress and
their cohorts played heavily on this
case during the election campaign in
influencing people locally
regionally and internationally that
the former Minister and the entire
New National Party were corrupt and
hence influenced the outcome of the
elections.
It is
important to note that Grynberg has
discontinued the claim that the then
Minister Gregory Bowen asked him for
a bribe since the first Tribunal
found him wanting in this accusation
as evidence provided by the Royal
Grenada Police Force Immigration
Department showed that he did not
visit Grenada in 1996 when he
claimed the bribe was requested, and
his explanation to that Tribunal for
no Grenada immigration 1996 stamp in
his passport, that he entered
Grenada on a private jet and met no
one at the airport to check him
either at entry or exit, met with
disdain.
In an
international news release, Ms.
Elizabeth Whitsitt advised of the
result of an attempt by Grynberg to
overturn the International Centre
for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes (ICSID) 2009 ruling in
favour of Grenada. The public should
note her opening statement that
since the termination of the
agreement in 2005, Grynberg used a
myriad of legal maneuvers to achieve
his common goal: that of extracting
$1.35billion from Grenada in lieu of
reinstatement of the agreement. In
this first part of his annulment
attempt, Grynberg asked ICSID to
investigate the allegation that the
then Minister for Energy was bribed
by others to ensure that his company
RSM will be removed from the
picture. His strategy rested on the
premise that this and not lack of
performance was the reason for
terminating the agreement.
The
application for annulment was filed
since July of 2009, the first
session held in October with the
decision being made on December 7,
2009. But Government failed to
advise the Grenadian public of the
challenge by RSM to the result they
had boasted about, and the
ramifications. The New National
Party therefore calls on the
Government to explain this course of
action and to do nothing to further
jeopardize Grenada in the
substantive annulment matter to be
heard later. In particular the NNP
calls on the government to disclose
the real reason for not defending
the NY lawsuit as Grenada’s lawyers
have always maintained that the
issues are identical, hence the
implication for Grenada will be the
same.
In this
context it must be remembered that
were it not for the New National
Party organizing the defense of the
NY lawsuit, Grenada would have been
saddled with a default judgment up
to the tune of $1.3 billion demanded
by Grynberg.
