The planned mediation between the disputing partners in the Cap Juluca issue, by a civil society group, has ended in failure with the official withdrawal of the three mediators.
The group – comprising Bishop Errol Brooks, Rev. Dr. Clifton Niles and Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge – made the surprise announcement at a press conference on Monday, September 3.
Their withdrawal came exactly one week after Chief Minister, Hubert Hughes, postponed a Motion in the Anguilla House of Assembly to commence the process for the acquisition of the land leases held by the owners of Cap Juluca, totalling some 179 acres.
The Chief Minister told the House on Monday, August 27, that the Government had set aside the Motion in order to give the civil society group an opportunity to meet with the Hickox and Brilla Groups to seek a settlement of their dispute. He cautioned, however, that the Government would proceed with the Motion if such an agreement was not arrived at.
This week’s withdrawal by the group made their offer of mediation both short-lived and blunt. “You would recall that sometime ago it was announced that Government was about to go to the House to pass a Motion for the acquisition of Cap Juluca and that the three of us, along with members of the Opposition, met with Chief Minister Hughes and Permanent Secretaries,” Bishop Brooks told reporters. “It was to look at another option – a way forward –by which, if it were possible, we would be allowed the opportunity to go and negotiate with the investors in Cap Juluca, to see whether we could come about with an amicable solution to the issue.
“The Chief Minister agreed, and we decidedthat we would go forth in good faith to have negotiations with them. Since then, we have been meeting with different people and we have come to the conclusion that if we were to engage in such an exercise, it would be futile. And so the purpose of the press conference, this afternoon, is to express the sentiment that we are officially withdrawing from the exercise of negotiating with the key players at Cap Juluca. It is regrettable, but that’s the bottom line.”
Bishop Brooks then proceeded to read a letter which the civil society group sent to Chief Minister Hughes that morning, Monday, September 3, the text of which is as follows:
“After doing some preliminary investigations regarding the Cap Juluca situation, there is a very strong perception that the playing field is uneven. In such an environment, genuine negotiations cannot occur.
“In order to help create an environment which is conducive for mediation we kindly request that both parties be informed, before negotiations begin on Tuesday, September 4th, 2012, that, should it become necessary that the Government acquires Cap Juluca, the Government of Anguilla will not entertain an offer of purchase from any of the parties involved in the negotiations with the group representing civil society. We do consider such a level playing field to be a requirement to ensure a meaningful outcome.
“Failure to concur with our request will leave us no option but to withdraw from the process and inform the public of our withdrawal and the reason for doing so.”
Asked what the response from Chief Minister Hughes was, Rev. Niles read Mr. Hughes’ reply as follows:
“I refer to your letter of today’s date – that is the 3rd of September 2012. I can reiterate that the Government of Anguilla is supportive of your initiative as shown by the adjournment of the debate at the House of Assembly allowing it to take place.
“However, we are not of the view that the playing field is uneven. If your attempts to mediate the differences between the stakeholders do not meet with success, it is likely that the debate on the resolution may need to continue.
“It would be wrong, in my view, for Parliament, and the Executive, to have its future options limited in the way you have requested. To exclude all current stakeholders from one potential attempt to de-fracture the resort, would cause logistical difficulties and could be entirely counter-productive.
“We hope, notwithstanding the fact that Government is unable to accede to your request, that your collective and extensive mediating skills may still be applied to good effect.
“Hubert B. Hughes, Chief Minister.”
The reporters at the press conference asked the civil society group to explain what they meant by “a level playing field” to which Bishop Brooks replied.
“As the letter pointed out… we met with several important persons in the society and, listening to where they are coming from, we find the whole matter is skewed in one direction,” the Bishop stated.
“Which direction?” he was asked.
“Direction of one of the parties,” he replied.
Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge gave a more detailed answer: “Well, let us be very candid,” he interjected. “As we talked to a number of the players, we are finding that the Brilla Group seems to be favoured – and this is known by legal counsel for the Hickox Group. And in our discussions with a number of people the same thing seems to be coming through. So there is a real concern about it. In other words, the climate is not right for negotiations.”
Mr. Hodge continued: We are saying that if we are going to sit with them [the investors], knowing that such a climate exists, what it probably means is that those folks aren’t coming to the table in good faith to negotiate…”
“Especially if they are aware that they are the favoured party…” Bishop Brooks joined in.
Mr. Hodge commented: “If you are going into negotiations and the table is skewed, then the negotiations are taking place in a different environment to a situation where no one knows for sure the outcome of the negotiations. We sense from where we are that there is unlikely to be a genuine desire to find a solution around the table.”
Asked why he thought that the Government was favouring the Brilla Group, Mr. Hodge replied: “There is a sense that this exercise [the Motion of acquisition in the House] was an exercise to get rid of one party and to allow the other party to purchase/takeover Cap Juluca.”
Pressed for more details, regarding the civil society group’s reasons for withdrawal, Rev. Niles stated: “I am not too sure that it is wise for us to get involved in details of that nature…What we say is that having heard from persons representing both sets of investors, we have formed the strong impression – and having heard as well from persons who are not representing any of the investors – Anguillians – that there is that preference on one side. And both sides seem to be aware of this. It has come over in different ways so that the side that considers itself not the favoured side has a certain attitude. The side that considersitself the favoured side also has another attitude.”
Asked whether that meant that both sides should not be in the picture, Mr. Hodge explained: “What we believe is that there should be no entertainment of them having the ability to participate in the ownership of Cap Juluca, should the Government of Anguilla take the decision to acquire. In other words, if the Government acquires, we are saying that none of the players – because there are more than two players – should be allowed to purchase Cap Juluca…
“What that does, it means that they are going to come to the table to negotiate a solution in good faith. If they come to the table and negotiate in good faith and the Brilla Group wins, or Hickox wins, that’s fine. But we don’t see them coming to the table in good faith because the table is skewed.”
As to the way forward, Bishop Brooks said: “If counsel for all the sides would still want us to meet with them to hear their views… we are prepared to do so.”
Mr. Hodge said that in the circumstances outlined by his group the three days of talks planned for this week, with the two parties, would be a waste of time. “The Government is still free to make its decision with respect to acquisition,” he observed. “The Government is still free to try to get these gentlemen together to try to negotiate/mediate. We are saying that for the next three days we don’t want to waste our time, sitting with these guys when, in our judgment, we are not looking at a level playing field.”
