One week after the double election in March - no one was really paying attention when the second acquisition of BTL was argued in court before Justice Legall.
But the pivotal case was argued over two days and a hugely consequential judgment was handed down today.
We say hugely consequential because the last time the courts judged such a matter, it happened in the court of Appeals, and when they ruled the first acquisition unlawful, the Ashcroft alliance went back to BTL and took back the company - if only to hold it for a few hours before the state re-asserted control.
That's why the company had to re-acquired - which gave rise to the controversial eighth amendment to the constitution.
So today, lots of people were on edge - but Legall delivered an anti-climactic judgement that put it both ways: the second acquisition may have been unlawful, but Government can still hold unto the company.
Confusing? It was to the sharpest attorneys in town as well, who came out of the courtroom claiming victory, but with only the government side still having control of the company. Here's what they told us:...
Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney for Employee's Trust
"What we've been able to get in terms of the core, is that the acquisition order - that SI signed by the minister - 70 of 2011 - is invalid, which suggests that the acquisition is bad in law. However, the judge goes on to order - to say really - that no consequential relief is granted, and then oddly orders the parties to sit and discuss compensation starting August 1. So, the upshot is that on the one end, it seems that he is saying that the way it was done was bad, but at the same time he's saying, 'I'm not granting any consequential relief.'"
Denys Barrow, SC - Attorney for the Government of Belize
"This is hugely a win for the Government, but I need to get clear the detailed basis of the win. Obviously, the judge gave an extremely close and incisive analysis of what was before him, and until one sits down and reads what he has written, you cannot really state the exactly the process by which he arrived at the conclusions that he made. But as you said, the short of it is that the Government remains the owners of the property that it acquired."
Jules Vasquez
"The status quo remains. No one will go and take over BTL, as happened the last time, and no costs have been awarded. It's a consequential judgment, but it really doesn't change anything."
Denys Barrow
"Right, I think that is an excellent summary. I think that you have understood it better off the cuff than I have done. So, I commend you, and I think that you are quite correct."
Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for Employee's Trust
"What I would say is based on the decision of Justice Legall, which he just handed down, the people who are in that building and in charge of the building - like your father - are in unlawful occupation of that building. It should not be lost on them that the judge has said that the acquisition of that company and my client's - the bank's - interests is unconstitutional. Now, I am not sure that anybody is going to forcefully try and take possession because I have no doubt that the Government will bring out its army and police again, and attempt to resist that. But, for the present purposes, they are in unlawful occupation."
Jules Vasquez
"If he ruled that it is as you've claimed - unlawful occupation - why then, didn't he go the other step and say, that occupation must now be vacated?"
Godfrey Smith
"No, that's a fair point, and that adds a good measure of confusion to the judgment which, obviously, we need time to dissect and further analyze."
Eamon Courtenay
"I would anticipate that the Government is going to issue yet another SI. You will recall that in 2009, they had to issue 2 SI's, then they issued 1 in 2011. It seems that there will more than likely going to be one in 2012. At one point, you have to say to yourself, 'Maybe I just don't know how to do this, and in fact it is wrong.' And they should back off, and leave the people with their private property. They need to start paying the bank its money, or it's likely that further steps will have to be taken."
This afternoon, the Ashcroft Alliance issued a pair of not quite triumphant press releases. The first came from the British Caribbean Bank, and it states, "there is no doubt that the Government is not the lawful owner of Telemedia."
A release from Alliance Employee Dean Boyce's BTL Employee's Trust goes further. It says that quote "there is no doubt that the Government is not the lawful owner of Telemedia and will have to go to the House of Representatives it pass another round of legislation if it wants to cure its legal possession of Telemedia."
It adds that quote, "the trustees of the Employees Trust will communicate with the Government appointed Board to make arrangements for a smooth handing over of Telemedia to the Original Board of Directors."
Tough talk, but likely wishful thinking as Government retains control and possession of the company. And, this is the same employees Trust that had set up a parallel company headquarters, to little effect, the last time the matter went to court.
Government has not issued a release , but as we understand it, its position is that the Board of Directors was appointed in accordance with the company's articles subsequent to the constitutional amendment.
Email
Print