| Related Links: | Articles on IDB Information and Technology Project |
| Letters Menu | Archival Menu |
The federal defendants
The federal defendants, however, argued before Judge Jackson that ATN lacked the requisite constitutional standing to maintain a claim against them.
They also argued that the statutes pursuant to which ATN was suing did not admit enforcement by private lawsuit and even if they did, the right to relief would involve non-justiciable political issues. The defendants also said these uncertainties preclude any relief by way of a writ of mandamus.
Judge Jackson found ATN's claim against the federal defendants to be "dubious" at best. He said that standing always required the existence of an injury in fact suffered by the plaintiff, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and likelihood that the injury would be redressed by a favourable court decision.
The judge said that while there might be some relationship between the IDB's impending loan to Guyana and the injury of which ATN complained, it was clearly not one of "cause and effect" as the federal defendants had nothing to do with Guyana's breach of contract.
Referring to ATN's claim for relief under the Helms Amendment and Gonzales Amendment, the judge said these were not intended to compel compliance with a private contract with foreign governments. These statutes purported to instruct the United States President and his subordinates to act to prevent disbursements of economic assistance to foreign nations that had expropriated the property of US citizens or repudiated or nullified any contract with such a citizen. The federal defendants asserted that neither of these statutes were enforceable at the instance of a private litigant.
Judge Jackson said the federal defendants' argument that ATN's complaint raised non-justiciable political questions by attempting to curtail Executive Branch discretion in what was essentially a matter of foreign policy, supported the conclusion that Congress had not intended the use of the Gonzalez or Helms amendments to compel compliance with private contracts.
The judge also said that to obtain a writ of mandamus demanded that the plaintiff had to prove a clear right to relief, a clear duty to act in the premises and that there was no adequate remedy available to the plaintiff otherwise. Jackson found that ATN met none of these prerequisites.
He found no clear right to relief because of no private cause of action under the Gonzalez or Helms Amendments, while the federal defendants had no clear duty to act as the ultimate decision on approving the loan under the statutes rested with the US President - "And there is adequate remedy available to ATN, namely, the remedy for which it contracted with Guyana and actually pursues at present in this amended complaint: an action for breach of contract against Guyana in a court of competent jurisdiction," Judge Jackson said. He later ruled this competent court to be the courts of Guyana.
The judge granted the motion of the federal defendants on all the grounds asserted.
The IDB motion
The IDB, which was named as a defendant, moved to dismiss the application on grounds that it possessed the equivalent of sovereign immunity from suit in cases such as the one before the court and that ATN failed to state a claim against the bank, upon which relief can be granted. The judge granted the motion.
Guyana's motion to dismiss
Guyana argued before the court that it was a sovereign nation and the US District Court of Columbia lacked jurisdiction as Guyana had sovereign immunity to suit in the US which it waived neither by its contract with ATN or by conduct.
Section 16 of the contract with ATN was cited, providing for any litigation in the courts of Guyana. Guyana also moved to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens (inconvenient forum). The judge granted the motion to dismiss on all the grounds.
While nine of the 18 pages in the ruling were devoted to Guyana's motion to dismiss and ATN's insistence that the US constituted jurisdiction, the judge found that subsection 16 and 16.3 of the ATN/Guyana contract explicitly stated that parties agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of Guyana and to have their disputes settled under Guyanese law. He said this section constituted a mandatory forum. Section 16.2 of the act said the government waived any defence of sovereign immunity and consented to suits if necessary to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation of the agreement. However, the following subsection said that resolving disputes regarding the agreement and arising therefrom, the government and ATN should submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of Guyana.
"ATN contends - without offering proof - that there are significant problems with the Guyanese legal system, including delays and potential corruption. ATN was, however, not so concerned about the state of public integrity or the Guyanese judicial system when it voluntarily committed itself and its considerable investment, in its contract with Guyana to a long term relationship with the government of Guyana and its judicial system. The court finds no compelling reason to find that the courts of Guyana are not a suitable alternative forum in which the plaintiff can receive an adequate and satisfactory remedy," Judge Jackson said.
He found that in balancing public and private factors, the scale was heavily tipped in Guyana's favour as the convenient forum for the action, save for the original defendants who were no longer party to the case.
To dismiss on the basis of inconvenient forum, Guyana had to show that an alternative forum existed and the balance of public and private interest favoured dismissal. The private interest factors include ease of access to proof, compulsory process to obtain the attendance of hostile witnesses, the cost of transporting friendly witnesses and other problems that represent impediments to an expeditious and inexpensive trial. The public interest factors were the desirability of clearing foreign controversies from congested dockets, the extent of any local interest in resolving the controversy and the ease with which the US court would have been able to apply the laws of an unfamiliar jurisdiction.
Judge Jackson said virtually all of the relevant evidence is in Guyana and the public factors weigh even more heavily in favour of dismissing and he held that Guyana was a proper forum for the lawsuit for breach of contract.