ST. GEORGE’S, Grenada, July 4 — Former Attorney General Cajeton Hood is calling for the courts to determine the legality of the Government’s acquisition of land for the proposed Project Polaris medical city, arguing that the incorporation of the Grenada Asset Bank Company Limited and its purchase of the property raise serious constitutional and legal questions that warrant judicial scrutiny.

Speaking during an exclusive interview on the Simon Says program, Hood said the matter has moved beyond political debate and should now be decided by the judiciary.

“I think it is time for somebody to go before the court because that’s the only power that we have in Grenada that can settle this,” Hood said. “Somebody needs to go to court and ask for accountability.”

Hood questioned whether the Grenada Asset Bank Company Limited was lawfully incorporated under the Companies Act, arguing that the Attorney General’s Chambers could not legally serve as an incorporator because it is not a natural person or a corporate entity capable of fulfilling that role.

“The Attorney General’s Chambers is not even a corporate person… it does not have corporate identity, and even if it did, that still would not allow it to be entered as an incorporator,” he said.

The former Attorney General also questioned whether the company was legally entitled to hold title to approximately 84 acres of land acquired for Project Polaris. Hood also questioned whether withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund were properly authorized, whether the Governor-General should have vested the lands in the Crown, whether shares were lawfully issued by the company, and whether statutory requirements under the Companies Act, the Constitution, the Crown Lands Act, and public finance legislation were complied with.

“The Prime Minister can be creative, but his creativity cannot go outside the bounds of the laws of Grenada,” Hood said.

The interview follows recent comments by Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell, who defended the creation and role of the Grenada Asset Bank Company Limited in facilitating the EC$36 million acquisition of the Calivigny Estate property for Project Polaris.

Speaking on The Bubb Report, Mitchell said the Asset Bank is “fully owned by the Government of Grenada” and that, “subject to correction,” its directors are permanent secretaries from key government ministries.

“The Grenada Asset Bank is a company registered in Corporate Affairs… You can get the corporate documents. The title deed for the land is also a public document,” Mitchell said, adding that the transaction was publicly announced when the land was purchased.

The Prime Minister explained that because the Government did not have sufficient funds to complete the purchase outright, it adopted what he described as a creative financing arrangement.

“We operate under the fiscal rules, and sometimes we have to find creative ways to accomplish the things we want to do,” Mitchell said. “The seller agreed, in a sense, to finance part of the land cost by allowing us to pay some of the money upfront and the balance over time through government bonds.”

According to conveyance documents, Grenada Asset Bank Company Limited holds title to the approximately 84-acre property after purchasing it for EC$36 million, with an initial EC$16 million payment from the Consolidated Fund and approximately EC$20 million in government-backed bonds.

While Mitchell defended the financing structure and maintained that the arrangement complied with the Government’s fiscal framework, Hood argued that several key legal questions remain unanswered, including the validity of the company’s incorporation, its authority to hold public lands, compliance with statutory procedures governing public finance and land acquisition, and the legality of the overall transaction.

Hood emphasized that his criticism was directed at the legality of the process, not the merits of Project Polaris itself.

“I am only talking about the legality and the issue of what the law provides for,” he said.

The former Attorney General said an independent court ruling would provide the legal certainty needed to resolve the competing interpretations surrounding one of the Government’s most significant development projects.