Guyana slams Venezuela’s case as built on “theatre and fiction”

The Government of Guyana on Monday strongly rejected Venezuela’s reliance on the so-called “Mallet-Prevost Memorandum” during hearings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Guyana’s lead counsel, Phillipe Sands, described the document as unreliable, unverified and devoid of factual substance.

Appearing on behalf of Guyana during the first day of hearings in the Hague, Sands argued that Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 Arbitral Award is null and void rests heavily on a document “that no one has ever seen.”

“The story of this document is so fantastical that it could rather feature in a novel,” Sands told the court, while questioning both the authenticity and credibility of the memorandum.

The document, attributed to former Venezuelan legal adviser, Severo Mallet-Prevost, has been used by Caracas to support allegations that the 1899 arbitral was influenced by a secret political arrangement between Britain and Russia.

However, Sands informed the court that the original memorandum has never been found, verified, or produced since it was first mentioned in a 1949 journal article by American lawyer Otto Schoenrich.

“There is no evidence to show that this supposed document is anything other than a creation of Mr Schoenrich’s imagination,” he stated.

Further, he argued that even if the memorandum did exist, it contains major factual inaccuracies, contradictions and speculation that undermine its credibility. Among the examples he brought to the attention of the court was a claim that British jurist Lord Russell influenced the arbitration process during a January 1899 dinner conversation. Sands pointed out that Lord Russell was not even part of the arbitration. “It follows that claim cannot be true.” He added.

The council also dismissed Venezuela’s allegation that Britain and Russia secretly colluded to determine the outcome of the arbitration. Sands described the accusation as “a concocted fantasy” unsupported by documentary evidence, historical records, diplomatic correspondence or tribunal archives. “There is not a shred of evidence,” he told the judges.

Additionally, he referenced historical research and archival reviews, which found no indication of any secret arrangement between Britain and Russia during the arbitration proceedings.

Sands also argued that the tribunal’s arbitrations, including compromise and negotiation among arbitrators, were normal features of international adjudication and not evidence of misconduct.

Throughout his presentation, the British French barrister maintained that Venezuela’s argument relies on speculation rather than law of fact. “Venezuela has opened before us a world of theatre and fiction, not law of fact,” Sands declared at the conclusion of his submission.

He urged the court to reject Venezuela’s attempt to invalidate the 1899 Arbitral Award, describing the memorandum as “a giant red herring”  that offers no credible basis for nullifying the decision that established boundaries between Venezuela and Guyana.