Former Prime Minister Arthur with Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley – courtesy Nation Newspaper
The focus will continue to be on the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) in the coming days, weeks and months; for sure over the next 100 days. Barbadians have very high expectations that the DLP will preside over a government that will be more people centric. The Barbados Labour Party (BLP) fell into the perennial trap of becoming too lofty after a long stint in power. We do not begrudge the DLP their victory, but our citizenry must remain aware that our democracy will only be as strong as an effective opposition.
How quickly will the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) resolve the leadership issue which attracted attention through the just concluded political campaign. We don’t have to rehash the issues like “is mia ready for leadership?” or should we say, “are Barbadians ready for Mia as leader?” What about the Mascoll factor? Will he become a distant memory in the annals of our political history or will he survive his recent setback and rise from the political dust-bin like a colossus?
Historically, the BLP have been able to resolve leadership crises without significant fallout. Owen Arthur has first hand experience of the machinations required to resolve leadership issues within the BLP. Don’t forget that he was the beneficiary of a similar leadership struggle within the BLP when the late Bernard St.John unfortunately died in office. On election night Owen Arthur was non-committal about his future in politics. Reading his body language he seemed a tired man, but we can attribute this to a very intense political where he was the focal point of the issues. Some people feel that there is no one better than Arthur to lead the BLP given his experience as a member of the three blind mice – Simmons, Arthur and Forde.
The purpose of the article is not to become embroiled in the internal decision making of the BLP over who should be their Maximum Leader. We are confident that this is a party which will stand the test of time. We are aware that it is one of the oldest political parties in this part of the world. It did not achieve this longevity by making frivolous decisions which will make it vulnerable. Why are we concerned with what happens to the BLP you are wondering? We all witnessed what a weak DLP opposition a couple years ago almost did to our democracy. In fairness to the DLP they had to battle with the parallel issue of the politics of inclusion.
All Barbadians who were made to wonder whether our democracy would have withstood that period when the DLP almost imploded would not want a rerun anytime soon. It is this point which should be of interest to all Barbadians. It does seem that our stable democracy is bound to how smoothly the BLP will be able to agree to what its future leadership will be.
It therefore gives us great pleasure to learn that the leadership issue of the BLP has been handed over with speed to MIA MOTTLEY. Her appointment was announced today as the Leader of the Opposition.
Barbados Underground 
Court battle over secret export commissions claims
· Company accused of circumventing bribery law
· Ex-manager denies kickbacks and fraud
Read Jonathan Danos’s defence here
Read Mabey’s writ here
David Leigh and Rob Evans
Wednesday January 2, 2008
The Guardian
One of the richest families in Britain is being accused in a courtroom battle of circumventing anti-bribery laws.
The Mabey family firm, whose worldwide empire is based on exports of steel bridges, is accused by its former sales manager of misconduct in sales to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Panama.
The former manager, Jonathan Danos, says that large secret payments of “commissions” to middlemen were artificially split to make them look smaller, and thus avoid official scrutiny.
Article continues
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
In all three countries, there was no competitive bidding for contracts, profits were alleged by him to be exceptionally high, and the money had to be borrowed from commercial banks, adding to the heavy debts of poor countries.
Many of Mabey’s sales are backed by the British taxpayer. The loans were guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), which is part of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
While Danos is making accusations against the company, he himself is being sued by the firm for allegedly pocketing hundreds of thousands of pounds for himself in corrupt kickbacks on the deals.
Mabey got a freezing order preventing the sale of Danos’s luxury home in Notting Hill, west London, last year and went to court. The high court said in a preliminary hearing there was “strong prima facie evidence” of fraud by him.
But Danos, who was awarded the MBE in 2000 for services to British exports, has denied all the claims, and retaliated by filing a detailed account of the devices he alleges were used by the firm to get around anti-bribery laws passed by the British government.
Excessive commissions are a common means of passing on bribes. As a result, British and US authorities generally frown on payments above 5%.
Danos claims that he was ordered to divide an 8.5% commission to be passed to a Jamaican businessman, Deryk Gibson, into two parts – a commission of 5%, and another 3.5% for non-existent “local services”. He was also ordered, he alleged, to similarly split a 17% commission for a deal in the Dominican Republic, where the agent is named as a local businessman, Gilberto Pagan. In a third set of deals, in Panama, commissions were paid at 15%, he alleged, to a bank account in the Bahamas allegedly controlled by another agent, Rogelio Dumanoir.
The Jamaica allegations will be particularly dismaying for the ECGD. Its advisory council conducted a special review of the £17m Jamaica guarantee in 2003, under pressure from anti-corruption campaigners, and concluded: “There is no great cause for concern.”
The then trade minister, Richard Caborn, said at the time: “I am pleased … This work will benefit the people of Kingston and rural areas”.
A Mabey director, Richard Glover, later unsuccessfully tried to persuade the ECGD that the firm should be allowed to keep its agents’ identities secret.
He wrote in 2005: “Exporters should be free to pay legitimate commissions to their agents without the burden of the obligation to provide ECGD with details that are often confidential and commercially sensitive.”
In his court filings, Danos paints in rarely seen detail a picture of a company that regularly paid huge sums to confidential agents to make sales around the world, although he does not directly accuse them of bribery. He says the firm’s founder, Bevil Mabey, who is 90, “established close relationships with high-level officials … and even in some cases vice-presidents and presidents”.
But when Britain passed an anti-bribery law in 2001, the founder’s son, David Mabey, changed the company’s procedures. Danos says he was told the “artificial split” in commission was “as a result of a need to comply with” the law, the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. US lawyers gave advice, Danos claimed, that commissions above 5% would also lead to suspicions by the US authorities of “bribery or inducements”.
The Mabey companies have previously been accused by anti-corruption campaigners of overcharging for sales of bridges and flyovers in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea.
They are still also under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office over allegations of kickbacks paid to the Saddam regime in the oil-for-food scandal. The UN Volcker report alleged that Mabey paid $202,000 (about £102,000) in return for a $3.6m Iraqi contract. The company says there is no truth in the allegations.
The Mabey family is estimated to be worth £310m. The most recent accounts show family members drew out £7m in personal dividends in the last year. The company regularly donates to the Conservative party.
A spokesman for Mabey said: “This case is about an alleged fraud on the company. We take the strongest possible action against employees and former employees who breach our policy or the law.
“This case is not about allegations of bribery and corruption. However, we have not, do not and will not pay or authorise the payment of bribes or any other form of unlawful inducement. We have a comprehensive anti-corruption policy with procedures which are vigorously enforced.”
Mabey is negotiating with Danos in private to try to settle the case before it comes to court.
Anti-corruption campaigner Sue Hawley, of the Corner House group, said last night: “Mabey has consistently been accused of sharp practices, and untransparent contract procedures.
“If companies can evade scrutiny of their commission payments by hiding them away as ‘local services’, this would blow a very large hole in the ECGD’s anti-corruption processes.”
NO WONDER ARTHUR WAS MOTIVATED IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY TO HIRE THIS CROOK TO HELP HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HALLAM NICHOLLS, STEVEN HOBSON, CO WILLIAMS, BIZZY WILLIAMS NOTHING LESS NOTHING MORE BUT REAL FRAUD.
THIS REALLY SPEKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS TO CORRUPT.
The former manager, Jonathan Danos, says that large secret payments of “commissions” to middlemen were artificially split to make them look smaller, and thus avoid official scrutiny.
In all three countries, there was no competitive bidding for contracts, profits were alleged by him to be exceptionally high, and the money had to be borrowed from commercial banks, adding to the heavy debts of poor countries.
M. Warnock you are a stranger to the truth my friend, Mr Mottley attended the Heros’s square meeting of the DLP so yes her family have been active and present at the campaign and part and parcel of mottley’s election campaign.
of course her family have been involved, I said Elliot Mottley does not get involved in political meetings.You claim he was at the BLP headquarters cussing and fighting. Find one person to say what you said in public. No one will becuase you made it all up. That is what you do. Make up stories for the gullible to follow. No one should believe anything you write. You ave no credibility.
It is a lie that the vote for Mia as leader of the BLP was unanimous.
The Vote was split 5 – 5 and in the end one went over.
Even pudding and souse which is mostly right had the information.
Party hierachy didnot want mia as the leader because they know bajans don’t like her lifestyle and will not support her or the party into victory if she is at the head.
If five people voted against Mia, find one of them to say there was a vote and it was not unanimous, they need not say any more, there is no disrespect in democracy. You will not find one. Owen recommended her and it was unopposed. There is no surprise in that.
I heard that Kellman refused to endorse Thompson as DLP leader the day after the election. I do not know and was not there and will not assert that was what happened for sure, and I am willing to hear someone who was there, but there would also be no surprise in that, and it would help to explain Thompson’s decision not to put Kellman in his cabinet.
Kellman is clearly not up for the collective responsibility of cabinet but he should be made head of some St Lucy Development Agency, then everyone would be happy and he could practice Kellmanomics to his heart’s content. The rest of us can observe. You never know, it might work.
Can’t be sure, but inclined to think if I were Thompson I’d have been absolutely, delighted to hear that MIA MOTLEY had been appointed new, leader of the Dems.
I might be thinking, “well, that’s my job guaranteed for at least the next ten years”!!!!
Find it difficult to imagine Bajans electing her as PM, but then, I don’t live there, anymore, so could be wrong!!!!
Mary Warnock I said Elliot Mottley does not get involved in political meetings.
And I state again for clarity, Mr Mottley attended the Heros’s square meeting of the DLP so yes her family have been active and present at the campaign and part and parcel of mottley’s election campaign.
during the period much discussion took place The comment below was what I said and I live by, so in future when you attempt to quote please do so with some seriousness, as I said mottley’s mother NOT HER FATHER was the one who created the stir not HER FATHER as you stated.
mottley’s mother finally had her way and the mottley’s clan and will to control the purse strings of this island will be attached but will have to wait a number of years before they get to do so, we must remember the mottley’s believe that there have a right to rule this country.
On balance I think blogs are a good and we should all support them, but WIV is the bad side of blog. People like WIV hiding behind annonymity to say something that is not true – not something that is unpopular or taboo and so they need anonymity, but something untrue.
WIV is making a point of observable fact. Were Mr and Mrs Mottley at the selection meeting, was there a split vote and in one of our two great parties a selection was forced upon them. This is one of those very serious, easily verifiable pieces of fact. So, given the seriousness of the assertion, find one member of the parliamentary person who has said publicly that there was a contest and a vote – they dont need to say who they voted for.
There is no reason for anyone to be ashamed of a vote in a selection process, it is a sign of competition and democracy. Until WIV can point to this quote, I urge him to stop wasting everybody elses time and space so we can discuss some real things.
Mary