AG Response on MOU Raises Questions

Details

Latest

Wednesday, 25 July 2012 02:31

By caribarena news

Antigua St. John's - Attorney General Justin Simon has replied to reports on Caribarena that his office was not consulted prior to the creation of a policy directive by Cabinet to the APUA Board of Commissioners to sign the Telecommunications Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The AG said that Caribarena's article “Killing the Free Market” is "replete with inaccuracies",

and questioned whether Caribarena had been deliberately misled by its sources, or whether Caribarena had chosen only to cite specific portions of information.

According to the AG, APUA's Directorate and Management were invited to Cabinet on the 18th of June to identify any major issues they would have, and that lawyers and technical personnel of all the parties had participated.

The AG further clarified that the cabinet directed the Attorney General's office to vet the MOU on the 18th of June, and that the negotiation of the MOU was a lengthy process which took several months.

However, the AG confirmed that his office had not been invited nor been involved in the negotiations of the MOU (aka Memorandum of Agreement, MOA), and that following his office's response on the 20th, talks with APUA and subsequent changes to the MOU were made, which were accepted by all parties.

Govt Connects With 4G LTE Antigua St. John's - The Ministry of Telecommunications, Science, and Technology continues to provide government departments and key public servants w... read more

According to the AG, his office's contribution would have been limited to legal and not technical matters even if they had participated.

The AG closed his response by denying that the MOU creates a cartel, without providing any specific reasons supporting why he is of this view.

This response raises several new questions.

On the 15th of June, APUA's attorney requested the advice of the office of the Attorney General on several matters pertaining to the MOU (see Letter 1).

On the 18th of June, the Cabinet issued to APUA a policy directive to sign the MOU (see letter 2).

Why had the Cabinet issued this policy directive to APUA and simultaneously directed the AG's office to vet the MOU?

It was only on the 20th of June that the AG's office replied, stating that it was not part of the negotiations, that it was the first time the office had examined the MOU, and that it took issue with several aspects of it (see Letter 3).

Why would the Government not instead have waited for this response from the AG's office, and then instructed APUA accordingly?

Also, why does the Attorney General insist on referring to the MOU as an MOA (Memorandum of Agreement), despite the fact that the Cabinet letter to APUA specifically instructs the statutory body to sign an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)?

Letter 1

Letter 2

Letter 3

• < Prev
• Next >