Dear Editor,
‘True to form,’ our ‘never-stop-working’ Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, on behalf of the Guyana Government, has appealed “… a High Court order, arising from its dispute with Austrian company, VAMID Engineering GmbH, over contracts for the construction of hospitals at New Amsterdam and Ogle…” To this, I pronounced a resounding AMEN, but first, a deserved laudatory preamble that befits the AG, and by extension, his Government and Country.
First, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, MP, is simply admirably obsessed with his role as the AG. His work ethic, characterized by manifest erudition, promptness, and detailed explanation, is wonderfully reciprocated by President Irfan Ali. The Head of State comfortably reposes in legal security and comfort, as his ‘chosen point-man,’ over and over again, has emerged as the ‘ace of the deck.’ Forbidden, I think, by law to comment in detail on running legal issues, I feel the saturating premonition of a favorable ruling for Guyana in this VAMID Engineering GmbH feud, upon which I will later make some fleeting germane comments.
Anil inspires confidence via his candor, as when objectively viewed, he comes over as a very intense, well-prepared, and highly capable defender of Guyana’s national interests, both locally and internationally. Of course, as Guyana’s Attorney General, his devolving roles mean that he is at the very heart of the country’s most critical legal battles.
This is being demonstrated right now in the “Border Dispute with Venezuela,” where he is employing his entire repertoire, legally and linguistically, to confront and convince the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the 1899 Arbitral Award is Res Judicata, based on the 1897 Treaty of Washington and decades of compliance.
As is well-established, he is working maniacally to guard and protect Guyana’s ‘territorial integrity’ and its ‘massive offshore oil resources’ from Venezuelan ‘illegal’ claims, seemingly fueled by uncontrollable avarice.
On this VAMID matter, it is the same tenacity and obduracy that he is bringing, as he labors in ‘Securing Public Funds in Failed Contracts,’ and therein, as AG, he, Nandlall, has launched quite ‘aggressively’ to seek justice for his country and government, as we are talking about a situation of ‘multi-million-euro performance bonds and reclaiming state lands. ‘ His role drives him to ‘protect taxpayers’ money when international contractors fail to deliver.’
As per his informative “Issues in the News,” he detailed to the public that ‘the government terminated both contracts (as there are two) on July 23, 2026, after what he describes as ‘breaches by the contractor’ and ‘excessive delays’ in completing the works enshrined in the contracts. He was careful to explain that ‘… despite repeated efforts by the government to have VAMID complete the projects and resolve the disputes amicably, the contractor failed to perform its obligations. ‘ Hence, ‘off to the courts.’ This is a classic case of ‘good and accountable governance,’ and here is why, as I move to my second point.
Editor, ‘mutual exclusivity kicks in here, as it is natural (for sure legal) to proceed to that which is ‘legally mandatory, ‘ that is, for a government to litigate against its contract awardees when it is necessary to protect taxpayers’ money, defend public safety, or uphold the integrity of the procurement system.
By the way, this should ‘shut down’ talks about government collusions in getting ‘ kickbacks ‘ from contract awardees.
So, the AG clearly spelled out that “When a private company signs a public contract, it is bound by the same commercial laws as any other entity, and the government has a fiduciary duty to the public to enforce those terms.” This is straightforward, and hopefully, we give him our ‘voices of support’ and encouragement.
On that said, “Issues in the News,” Nandlall unequivocally, in a non-error presentation, noted that “At the date of termination, the works under the contracts were way behind where they were supposed to be by that time, and the government had no choice but to terminate the contract.” It is a simple case of defaulting into the termination. Consequently, steps were triggered “to secure both hospital sites and the materials located there, as provided for under the contracts.” The termination defaulted also into the move to call in the performance bonds attached to the contracts.
Bear in mind that this is not a ‘small change’ matter as “each contract was secured by a performance bond valued at €15 million, bringing the combined value of the two bonds to €30 million.”
No wonder the AG is imbued with such concerned ‘zest.’
Currently, as he also pointed out, “the dispute between the government and VAMID has proceeded to arbitration … as both contracts contain arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be referred to the Paris, France-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).”
However, as we await the arbitration unfolding, the government has appealed a High Court order where VAMID also initiated legal proceedings in Guyana, seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract and several injunctions against the government, requesting orders restraining the government from invoking the performance bonds and from taking control of the hospital sites. The ruling now stands at a point where both the company’s and government applications were withheld, as both parties were ordered not to take control of the sites or materials until an arbitration tribunal is appointed.
Nandlall, in demystifying the matter at hand, explained that the restraint on the government is “manifestly wrong” and disclosed that the government has since appealed it … (and as it stands) the judge still enjoined both parties from taking control of the site and the materials until the arbitration tribunal is appointed.” According to the AG, that is a ‘manifestly’ wrong order, and thus, pending a successful appeal, ‘even before arbitration, the government can seize control.’
Editor, I am attuned to what is happening in Trinidad & Tobago, where VAMID was contracted by the state enterprise Udecott to design and build the Point Fortin Hospital. VAMID then hired local subcontractor V&S General Contractors Ltd. for foundational and civil works, but then abruptly locked them out of the site and withheld millions in payments.
V&S then hauled VAMID before High Court Justice Marissa Robertson, where the case has now reached a full evidentiary phase, and VAMID has to answer for a massive $21.2 million ‘breach of contract’ lawsuit.
I feel greatly optimistic that this will be another win, via the AG, for all of Guyana.
Yours truly,
H.B. Singh.