Opposition Leader Mia Mottley has dismissed as total nonsense, claims that she earned legal fees of $4 million for work done on the stalled Four Seasons hotel project.
“This notion that Elliott D Mottley & Company earned $4 million in fees from a private company is a nonsense and a falsehood. I have indicated that eight lawyers working over a period of time did not even reach a half or a 1/3 of that amount. They are still owed funds and it was not for one transaction, but for s series of transactions.
The claim against Mottley has surfaced following her response to the 2017-2018 Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals in Parliament last week in which she claimed that attorney-at-law Hal Gollop, QC, a legal partner of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, had received fees $1.5 million for work done on the newly constructed Barbados Water Authority headquarters building in Pinelands, St Michael.
While promising to uncover and root out corruption in both high and low places, Mottley had also charged that Gollop was instrumental in Stuart’s re-election in St Michael South constituency.
Tuesday, the Opposition Leader took a further swipe at the governing Democratic Labour Party, reminding that “I was not a Prime Minister charging $3.3 million for legal work done for CLICO while being the Prime Minister of a country”.
It was a clear reference to allegations made against former Prime Minister David Thompson following his death in 2010.
The Opposition Barbados Labour Party leader also gave the country the assurance that the notion that lawyers can charge four and five times more than their counterparts in the same transaction, was wrong.
Mottley argued that there was a minimum scale of fees which informed lawyers most of the time, stressing that they usually charged according to the scale of fees.
Mottley added that if the client felt that he had been charged excessive fees he could go for taxation of the fees as well from the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
On the final night of the Budget debate Prime Minister Freundel Stuart sprang to Gollop’s defence against what he said were attempts by Mottley to sully the character of his friend of 50 years.
Both Stuart and Gollop challenged Mottley to come out into an open forum and repeat the scurrilous allegations she had made against them in the House of Assembly.