Venezuelan gold advance lawsuit in London: British government reiterates support for Guaidó

Lawyers for the regime Nicolas maduro and the administration of the opponent Juan Guaido on Tuesday defended their respective authority over Venezuela’s gold deposited with the Bank of England, in a case which sets a precedent in the United Kingdom.

Nick Vineall, on behalf of the board of directors of the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) appointed by Maduro, and Andrew Fulton, representative of the parallel council organized by Guaidó, presented their arguments in the second day of proceedings before the British Supreme Court, the country’s highest court.

The Supreme Court, which analyzes an appeal brought by Guaidó against an earlier unfavorable decision, must to govern, on a date to be specified, who the British executive truly considers sovereign for all intents and purposes in Venezuela – whose board of directors of the BCV would in principle have power over gold.

If he ultimately concludes, on the basis of English case law –and not just what the London executive says-, that the leader is Guaidó, the five judges will then have to decide if they consider their political appointments to be good (including advice), although they were invalidated by the Supreme Court of Caracas.

The Supreme Court’s decision will be used to ensure that, eventually, the Superior Court determine which board you allow to manage gold, which Maduro claims with the argument of transferring funds to the UN to acquire equipment and drugs against the pandemic.

London supports Guaidó

James Eadie, Legal Adviser to the UK Foreign Office, intervened today, confirming the “clear and unambiguous” position put forward on Monday that his government recognizes only Guaidó, not Maduro, as head of state of Venezuela and his powers to act as such.

Contrary to what Maduro’s side is asking for, Eadie urged the court to accept this position based on the so-called “one voice” doctrine – which urges the powers of the state to act in a unified manner in foreign policy – without going into “examining the context” of who actually controls the institutions in Venezuela.

Likewise, he considers that the court should not take into account the fact that the Venezuelan justice He does not recognize Guaidó’s status or his political appointments, which were canceled.

Fulton, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, agreed that the English doctrine of Acts of a Foreign State requires the court to take for “valid Yes effective“, regardless of whether “they are legal or not”, the appointments of Guaidó on Venezuelan soil, since he was recognized as head of state by the British government.

Maduro challenges the British government

For his part, Nick Vineall, for the board of directors of Maduro BCV, wonders about the “constitutional status“In this trial against Guaidó, who in January ceased to be president of the Venezuelan National Assembly at the do not run for the 2020 elections in your country.

The lawyer argued that although the UK government recognized him as head of state, he did not do so as head of government because the opponent “has no control“In Venezuela, it would therefore not be wise to leave him in charge of gold reserves, valued at nearly $ 2 billion.

For example, according to him, the recognition of London is confusing, Vineall noted that the British government had refused to grant diplomatic powers to Vanessa Neumann, Juan Guaidó’s former ambassador to London, while maintaining ties with Maduro’s representatives.

Eadie, the attorney for the Foreign Ministry, argued, however, that it is not relevant or meaningful that the executive continues the relationship “in limited spheres” with the Chavist administration.

Maduro’s board attorney warned that he would only hand the gold to Guaidó because the London government, due to its own geopolitical motives, recognized him as the leader of Venezuela. this could damage the reputation of the Bank of England and the UK as a custodian of foreign assets.

Vineall stressed that while the opposition leader’s “ad hoc” board of directors receives the assets, given that it does not exist as a body on the ground, their transactions will not be duly audited and there will be no guarantee that they will benefit citizens.

(By Judith Mora – EFE)

Read on: