Lovell Rejects $1.5M Profit Claim at Jolly Beach as ‘Unverified’
Former Finance Minister demands transparency on resort’s financial performance
Former Finance Minister Harold Lovell is demanding that the government produce audited financial statements to support its claim that the Jolly Beach Resort has turned a profit of US$1.5 million under the management of the Barrett Group.
Speaking at a United Progressive Party (UPP) town hall meeting held at Freedom House on Monday night, Lovell described the government’s statements about the profitability of the resort as “unverified” and potentially misleading.
“Where are the audited financial statements?” Lovell asked. “We keep hearing about this $1.5 million in profit, but no one has produced any documentation to show where that figure is coming from.”
The government has previously stated that under the stewardship of the late Sir Robert Barrett, the resort began generating profit following years of financial hardship. Prime Minister Gaston Browne has suggested that the Barrett Group will continue to manage the property, even after Sir Robert’s passing.
However, Lovell cast doubt on both the profitability and the sustainability of the current management arrangement. “Rob Barrett was one of the most outstanding hoteliers in the region, and his personal leadership was a major factor. But there’s no guarantee that the same success can continue without him,” he said.
He further warned that using Social Security funds to support the redevelopment or operation of the resort, based on such unverified profit projections, would be “reckless.”
“This isn’t NAMCO’s money. This is Social Security money—money that belongs to contributors and beneficiaries. If you’re going to risk it, you need hard facts and full transparency,” Lovell argued.
He also noted that the Social Security Board has not been presented with key documents, including a valuation of the property or detailed operational reports. “To this day, the board has not seen any audited financial statements for Jolly Beach or even for Social Security itself in recent years,” he said.
Lovell reiterated his call for the government to publish full financial disclosures relating to the resort’s management and any proposed investment from the Social Security Fund, warning that failure to do so could have long-term consequences for pensioners and other beneficiaries.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
That’s why I state again, that there shouldn’t be any debate about using SS to fund this failed resort, none.
And also for the fact that Gatson Browne is not really asking for a debate, because his style is to force things down the public throats,then come back later to clean up his foolishness. He listens to no one, and that’s a fact. He already made up his mind and this debate is just a waste of time..that’s how he operates.
There was no talk or debate about Lait2020, none about the Alpha Nero, none about the 1000 Africans coming to Antigua, none about raising vehicle taxes, no debate when he was raising the 17% tax, none.
That’s not this man’s style, so why are we even listening to this conniving person?
He does not want a debate, it’s snake oil talk for when he fails, he can come back and said that he was being transparent and open.
Don’t fall for it Lovell.
I just wish that the entire Social Security investment case was less politicized and more inclusive. It is too important an issue to be drowning in political partisanship. The only interrelated principles and consideration that should underlie the investment of Social Security funds are:
– clarity of objectives
– independence of political interference
– accountability to insured persons
– sound governance
– low operating costs
– prudence in investment
The objectives of the Social Security Board are to manage any amounts that are transferred to it in the best interest of contributors and beneficiaries and to invest with a view of achieving a maximum rate of return without UNDUE RISK OR LOSS. In all of this, the Board has been noticeably silent and seem to lack the independence that is expected of them.
I once again voice my concern about the risky nature of this investment and its possible potential impact on contributors and pensioners later on.