– Chief Justice Ian ChangChief Justice Ian Chang, ruling in a high profile court case on Monday, says Synergy Holdings Incorporated’s execution of the US$15.4M (G$3B) road project for the Amaila Fall Hydro-Electric Project may have to be closely monitored.However, he refused to grant orders to quash the award of the contract.On Monday, the Chief Justice (ag), in a 17-page decision, declined to issue the Orders or Rules Nisi of Certiorari and Prohibition, in a court case filed by Ramon Gaskin, a private citizen.Gaskin,Cheap NHL Jerseys Online, in his motion filed on June 10,Wholesale Soccer Jerseys, had brought the case against the Minister of Public Works and Communication and the Executive Director of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL).Representing Gaskin were Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Attorneys-at-law Fitz Peters, Neil Boston and Christopher Ram.In his decision, the Judge noted that while the affidavit in support of the motion was “pregnant with alleged breaches of procedure, it is somewhat lacking in allegations of fact in support of those procedural breaches of law.”The motion had asked for an Order or Rule Nisi of Prohibition directed to the Public Works Minister and NICIL to stop them from taking further steps in the contracts since the award breach the Constitution and the Procurement Act of 2003.Justice Chang said that it is noteworthy that while the motion alleges that the award of the contract was made by government through the Ministry of Public Works and the Executive Director of NICIL, the supporting court documents did not contain the evidence to support this.“There is no evidence in the said affidavit that the evaluation of the tenders was conducted by either of these two officials. Nor does the said affidavit contain any evidence to enable a finding that the award of the contract to Synergy Holdings Inc., was unreasonable or irrational in the Wednesbury sense.”Justice Chang was of the opinion that there appears to be a disconnect between the orders in the motion and the affidavit in support of the motion which seems to focus mainly on the issue of procedural non-compliance.He pointed out that while the invitations for proposals was made since in December with a deadline for submissions of proposals in January, the application by Gaskin “which was grounded on perceived procedural illegalities which occurred between those dates,Authentic Jerseys Wholesale, was not made until June 10, 2010 after the completion of the entire tendering process and the publication of the award of the contract.”Such a delay does give the appearance that the primary motive for court case “might well have been a genuine disapproval of the personality of the successful bidder, Synergy Holdings Inc. rather than a concern that the tender procedures might not have been adhered to.”The court said that it believes that since Gaskin was not directly or personally affected by the tendering process,Wholesale NFL Jerseys, and is indeed a “stranger”, the apparent lack of motive primarily grounded in the public interest is ensuring adherence to the statutory tendering procedure speak against the exercise of the court’s discretionary power in the applicant’s favour.“Moreover, while the capacity of Synergy Holding Inc. to execute the contract may understandably be a matter of some public doubt and concern especially as it involves work to the value of US$15,400,000, this court is unable to persuade itself that the issue of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition would be for the public good in light of the importance of the hydroelectric project to the public welfare and development of the country.”In his motion, Gaskin had claimed that the award of the contract was in breach or in disregard to the Constitution and the Procurement Act and were made in “bad faith,Wholesale Authentic Jerseys, without or in excess of jurisdiction,Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale, is unconstitutional, unreasonable illegal, irrational, arbitrary and capricious, procedurally improper ultra vires, null void and of no legal effect.”Gaskin is appealing the decision.
