The commission hearing a request for a basic electricity rate on Wednesday issued a final warning to intervenors and attorneys for the applicant regarding their behaviour, and promised to evict anyone who continues to “disrespect” the tribunal.
It was the second time that the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) panel has cautioned parties on both sides about their conduct during the proceedings which are considering the request from the Barbados Light and Power Company (BLPC) for an 11.9 per cent hike in rates to customers. Today, however, was the first time the commissioners told parties they would be removed from the hearing.
The panel’s stern warning stated: “If the behaviour continues, the person or persons will be removed from the hearing either physically or virtually. Please be guided accordingly,” the commission ruled.
The ruling followed a shouting match between intervenor and attorney-at-law Tricia Watson and lead counsel for the BLPC, Ramon Alleyne whose voices almost drowned out that of the chairman of the hearing Dr Donley Carrington, as he sought to restore order to the proceedings. The drama started to unfold when under cross-examination by Watson, the company’s Director of Finance Ricaido Jennings was asked “do you appreciate that the failure to retire the inefficient steam plant and put more efficient equipment, cost Barbadian consumers over $300 million and it, therefore, cannot be said that retaining the steam plant has been beneficial to Barbados Light and Power’s customers?”
After Jennings disagreed with Watson and then elaborated, she made certain comments about his response prompting the chairman Carrington to instruct her to withdraw the remarks that were considered out of order. The intervenor said she had no difficulty withdrawing the remarks, but counsel for the company Ramon Alleyne intervened and placed on record his agreement with the chairman’s ruling.
When asked how much longer she had before the commission could get to the other intervenors, Watson told Dr Carrington she had 15 more questions to ask the witnesses. The chairman then told Watson to wrap up her cross-examination in 15 minutes, having by that time questioned the asset management team of Yohan Greaves, Rohan Seale and Jennings for close to two-and-a-half hours.
Watson proceeded to introduce a newspaper article as a basis on which to continue cross-examining the team of BLPC witnesses. But before dealing directly with the contents of the article, she asked Seale – director of asset management – why the company spent $230,000 in 2011 on a plant that was due for retirement in 2012.
However, the chairman of the panel stepped in and reminded Watson that this was evidence already addressed and that she should move on to a new area of enquiry. That position did not sit well with the intervenor and her response was that “the company has put in certain evidence and I think that we are permitted to challenge that evidence and that’s what I am doing. So would you permit me?” she urged.
“I think you have challenged the evidence and we are well aware, so we are just asking you…” Dr Carrington was insisting before he was interrupted by Watson who succeeded in making her point that there were “several instances relating to the retirement of this steam plant that contradict the company’s evidence in relation to the prudence of its decision [and] its intention when it made its decision.”
She contended that this is evidence which she should be permitted to lay before the commission.
“I do not think it is reasonable to suggest to me that I should move along,” Watson declared, arguing that the tribunal did not know where she was going with the evidence. There were further interjections by the intervenor as commissioner Ruan Martinez sought to get her attention. But Martinez’s voice competed with Watson’s as the commissioner repeated her name six times to which the intervenor echoed Martinez’s name three times.
Once the commissioner was finally able to speak uninterrupted, she too, told Watson there was no need to rehash evidence already dealt with and urged her to move on. However, the lawyer insisted she should be allowed to ask the questions. The legal counsel for the BLPC Alleyne again intervened and pointed the tribunal to Rule 42, sub rule 7 which confers certain powers on the commission to get a hearing done expeditiously by “cutting lines of repetitive questioning.”
Alleyne, King’s Counsel, explained that the ruling of the commission was in line with the rules in terms of the constraints on questioning things that are either new and that would not cause undue delay in relation to the proceedings. After deliberating for a few minutes, the commission permitted the intervenor to ask her question which she directed to Seale about a 2012 company letter, the essence of which Watson contended showed that BLPC had by that time, decided not retire the steam
It was at this stage she sought to question Seale on the newspaper article of October 13, 2013. But Alleyne questioned the admissibility of the article and objected on the grounds that there is no sworn testimony in relation to the publication that he is unaware of, the author and that it was not properly before the commission in a manner that can be admitted as evidence.
The commissioners again deliberated on the issue and allowed Watson to respond to Alleyne. She accused the company of using newspaper articles on which to base its decision-making in the past and even providing articles, presumably as evidence in the current hearing that were not sworn.
Once again the tribunal deliberated on a request by Watson to permit admission of the publication by giving her side time to prepare an affidavit if so required for the article to be accepted as evidence. Before the commissioners made their ruling, Alleyne denied the accusation that the Light and Power had tendered newspaper articles as evidence in this hearing.
Commissioner Martinez then told Watson that the commission had issued a procedural order previously, that all evidence must be entered by way of an affidavit.
“The introduction of a newspaper article was not in compliance with the order, therefore you will not be entitled to rely on the same. We therefore ask you to move to a new line of questioning and seek to wrap up your cross-examination within the next 15 minutes,” commissioner Martinez declared.
In continuing her cross-examination, the intervenor claimed that the BLPC had been guided by an article in the newspaper on the failed Cahill waste-to-energy project. When Alleyne objected and denied the assertion by Watson, it turned into a verbal boxing match punctuated by raised voices. The situation deteriorated to the point where when the chair of the tribunal told Watson to give him a minute so he could once again deliberate with his fellow commissioners, she declared she wasn’t finished yet.
After the deliberations, the panel issued its strongest statement to date, again read by commissioner Martinez. “We wish to remind all parties about the behaviour being exhibited and what has occurred again today about the total lack of respect and regard for the panel, the statements of the panel and the decisions made by the panel,” she said.
Much of today’s evidence was of a technical nature or involved issues previously dealt with.
Hearing resumes on Thursday at 9 a.m. using a hybrid format. All of the intervenors, witnesses and Alleyne joined the proceedings via the Zoom platform. Those who appeared in person at the Accra Beach Hotel and Spa were the commissioners, members of the FTC staff and support personnel, some BLPC staff and representatives of three media houses.
emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb
