DR Herbert Thompson, a director of the board of BNS Jamaica, said he and a few other directors had taken the position that Bill Clarke deserved “reasonable terms” of separation after 40 years with the bank.

Thompson, the current president of the Seventh-day Adventist run Northern Caribbean University, outlined his stance, in a statement to the Observer.

He is one of three directors, the others being Professor Stephen Vasciannie and Dr Jean Dixon, who appear to be backing the former BNS CEO in his battle with the bank.

“The position I took, along with a few others of my director colleagues, was that when a man has done as much as Bill Clarke has done to build a financial empire such as Scotiabank, when a man has given the best 40 years of his life in the service of the building of that empire, the terms of separation ought to be reasonable and that somebody such as Bill Clarke should not have to live in poverty in the future.

“There’s no financial institution in Jamaica that will take Bill Clarke and embrace him and give him work for the very fact that Bill Clarke was such an ardent supporter of Scotia that he acted as though there were no other financial institutions but Scotia, so he’s really put the best years of his life into it.

“So, as a matter of principle, I feel that the separation package must be mutually agreed upon yes, but it must be reasonable enough so that he can make a living after having given 40 years of service. That is what I’ve always defended and the people in Canada know, my colleague directors know and it is a principle that I stand on.

“There are some differences between the management of Scotiabank and Bill Clarke as to what the terms of agreement are on whether the matter goes to arbitration and the court is going to rule on it on March 10 so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

“I defended that position with good reason. It is something that I would have done for anybody in a similar position anywhere.”

Dr Vascianne, who presented the arbitration resolution to the board on Clarke’s behalf, declined to discuss his position publicly, saying: “I think the court should resolve it. I don’t think I should discuss it before the court decides it. I don’t think it would be fair to Mr Clarke nor to the board of directors, of which I am a part.”

Efforts to reach Dr Dixon proved futile.