The Tribune

By Ava Turnquest

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY General Carl Bethel confirmed yesterday the government has retained a local firm of private lawyers to defend a $1.1 million lawsuit against Public Works Minister Desmond Bannister for the wrongful termination, misfeasance in public office, and defamation/slander.

The accusations were leveled by former Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) chairperson Darnell Osborne and former BPL board members Nicola Thompson and Nick Dean, who claim in statements filed last week that Mr Bannister got hostile with them over their independent stance on a number of issues related to the LNG power plant deal with Shell North America.

In Mr Dean’s statement of claim, he alleges BPL CEO Whitney Heastie fired a senior technical employee who did not support his $4m proposal to purchase new equipment for an aging engine.

Much of the claims contained in the writs reflect what was reported by The Tribune last year with the former members recounting the events that led to the board’s shock dissolution; however, Mr Dean suggests Errol Davis, director of BPL’s Generation Department, was also a casualty.

In July 2018, Mr Heastie submitted a memo to Mr Dean - the chairman of the procurement committee of the board at the time - requesting $4m funding for the purchase and replacement of two turbocharges on an engine that was still operational. It preceded an incident in May when a turbocharger on another one of the BPL engines at the Clifton Pier Power Plant failed.

Mr Dean said he was asked by Mr Heastie to decide on the proposal within six days, and noted the proposal was from a company with which Mr Heastie had a previous relationship.

The proposal was deficient, according to Mr Dean, on a number of points: the equipment cost was just under $2.8m and there was no justification for the $1.2m gap between the proposal and funding request; there were no costs included for insurance, freight and installation; and there was also no technical opinion from senior BPL staff to support the purchase.

“Technically,” Mr Dean’s statement read, “the four-million-dollar investment was difficult to justify when there was a viable alternative $600,000 option on the table, based on an asset that had reached the end of its life. The units that the turbochargers were being ordered for were already 27 years old.  An investment of this amount for an asset of this age meant that the quantified ROI would have exceeded the remaining life of the asset; thereby, making the project unjustifiable, based on asset life and investment.”

It continued: “Moreover, DA9 & DA10 were scheduled to be replaced under the Shell MoU, as was reported to URCA. The commercial justification is further compromised in the context of BPL’s depreciation schedule of 25 years, which means that the asset is already fully depreciated, thereby, making the investment even more undesirable.”

The $600,000 option was to repair engines by replacing the damaged casings instead of purchasing two new turbochargers.

Mr Dean states he requested Mr Heastie to shore up technical justification for the proposal, as well as provide competing bids to ensure accountability, transparency and fairness in the procurement process, as well as compliance with the corporation’s procurement policy.

Mr Dean said he requested an on-site visit to the power station on July 31, 2018, and Mr Heastie assigned Mr Davis to accompany him.

“During the visit, the plaintiff learned that the BPL’s senior technical staff did not support the proposal to purchase the turbocharges,” the statement read, “but supported the purchase of the casings, as they had the capacity to repair the engines until the engines were replaced.”

Mr Dean said Mr Davis was summarily terminated five months ahead of his scheduled retirement after he returned for a site-visit with Mr Dean.

Mr Davis had been working at BPL for 25 years.

Mr Dean said he asked Mr Heastie for competing bids or a statement confirming that it was not possible to have competing bids for the replacement of the turbochargers at Clifton Pier; a cost breakdown and analysis for competing options; and an opinion from the senior technical staff of BPL.

He added that Mr Heastie failed, neglected or refused to provide the requested information.

Last year August, Mr Bannister told Tribune Business that Mrs Osborne and Nick Dean’s refusal to green light the proposal had directly exposed residents in New Providence to blackouts and set the corporation up to incur a $10m-plus loss.

Mr Dean states Mr Bannister expressed anger and threatened to remove him and other board members if they did not comply with his wishes in a meeting on August 2, 2018.

“[Mr Bannister] stated that he wanted Mr Heastie, the CEO of BPL, to run BPL and have the power to hire BPL’s executives, without reference to or involvement by the board of BPL; that it was nonsense for the Chairwoman [Darnell Osborne] to take the position that the opinion of outside counsel should be secured prior to board’s signing off on the Shell MOU and the unilateral hiring and firing of BPL’s executives by the CEO.”

Notwithstanding the threat, Mr Dean said he maintained his position as an independent director without bias and further suggested that BPL adopt quality management system protocols to ensure corporate accountability, transparency and efficiency.

The entire board was called to a meeting with Mr Bannister on August 14, 2018 - with the exception of Mr Dean who was travelling - to ask for their resignations as other directors: Patrick Rollins, Whitney Heastie and Ferron Bethel had already resigned.

Mr Bannister reportedly told the grouping that he and Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis were unhappy with the way the board was functioning.