The October sitting of the Appeal Court began this morning with 2 very heavy matters, and those are is the constitutionality of the acquisition of BEL in June of 2011, and the re-acquisition of BTL of July 2011.
The first and second appeal cases were filed by the Government of Belize questioning the judgement from Justice Legall in which he ruled that the second acquisition was unconstitutional.
The respondents, The British Caribbean Bank and Dean Boyce and the Trustees of the Employees Trust, were also dissatisfied with that judgement because although Justice Legall ruled that BTL re-acquisition was unconstitutional, GOB remained in control of the company. Their view was that an order should have been given to force GOB to vacate the company and return it back to the former owners.
So the judgement was appealed by both sides - which is unusual.
And in BEL matter, Fortis Energy International - former owner of the electricity company - was challenging the acquisition of the company by GOB. They made an application to Justice Legall to have the BEL acquisition challenged, but Justice Legall refused. However, they were granted leave to join this appeal in the BTL matter.
It was under those contexts the Appeal Court was rammed full with foreign and local attorneys, including Queen's Counsels Nigel Pleming and Lord Peter Goldsmith, up to a few minutes ago. Viewers may remember Lord Peter Goldsmith as the attorney who was brought in - supposedly - by Vaughan Gill & Ricardo Castillo to get the Appeal Court to restrain the GOB from signing the 9th Amendment into law in 2011.
You may also recall that he declined comment at that time, and tonight after the hearing was finished, we received the same experience once again.
Here's an excerpt of what took place just after the hearing - which finished at 6:30 this evening when we spoke to Government Attorney Denys Barrow:
Daniel Ortiz
"Goodnight gentlemen, is it possible I could get a comment sir?"
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"Appeal 18 and 19 you put those together - those are both by the government. In one instance it is against British Caribbean Bank and in another instance it is against Dean Boyce and the trustees of BTL Employees Trust. We have appeal and they have cross appeal and the civil appeal #21 is a completely separate one which is Fortis International relating to BEL compulsory acquisition."
"So, two separate acquisitions in one acquisition; the Telemedia acquisition - that was the acquisition of shares as well as the acquisition of the debt which the bank owns and allegedly owed by Telemedia. That is where you have those two appeals."
"Fortis is completely separate - the 8th amendment also captured or dealt with the Fortis/BEL acquisition."
Daniel Ortiz
"Sir, can you please tell us about your submission which you made to the court on this first day of argument."
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"My submissions were essentially were arguing that the acquisitions were in fact validated or given constitutional strength by the 8th amendment to the constitution which you will recall caused a great deal of discussion, anxiety, differences and discussions in the country of Belize and we are saying that the effect of that 8th amendment was to put this acquisition beyond controversy, beyond dispute, beyond challenge. They are saying in their written submissions that this is not so - that there are limits even with a constitutional amendment on what you can do and they are saying that what was purported to be done was not in fact validly done and that therefore the court as Justice Legall did should strike it down."
Daniel Ortiz
"Sir, we have Mr. Lord Peter Goldsmith - he is saying that the appeal court has already decided on this matter and this new re-acquisition is simply the same acquisition. What is your view on what he has submitted to the court in relation to that sir?"
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"He needs to say that because otherwise he would have to accept that the acquisition which was done over in 2011 for differently stated reasons are and what he is saying is that you have stated reasons in 2009, so whatever you state in 2011 you are bound by what you said in 2009. We of course do not accept that."
Viewers may remember that the Aschroft Alliance made an attempt to get the newly appointed Justice of Appeal, Samuel Awich removed from the Court of Appeal.
That attempt failed, but it became an issue today when Pleming and Goldsmith submitted that this failed attempt now puts them at odds with Awich.
They tried to get him to recuse himself from this case, but ultimately, they failed. We asked attorney Denys Barrow to explain.
Here's what he had to say:
Daniel Ortiz
"The appellant British Caribbean Bank through its attorney Queen Counsel Pleming said that they would wish for Justice of Appeal Awich to recuse himself from sitting on this case. Can you tell us what the significance of that and what is exactly happen in relation to this application to the court?"
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"The application was refuse. The president came out at the end of a period of deliberation after the application was made and said that it was refuse - did not give any reasons and that is standard. He indicated that it was by a majority decision, so obviously of the 3 of them, one of them did not think that Justice Awich shouldn't continue."
"The application for his recusal was based upon a letter written actually by Lord Ashcroft, Dean Boyce and I forgot who was third writer - challenging the validity, soundness of the appointment of Justice Awich as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. They contended in that letter that he ought not to have been appointed and they say something which I would not care to repeat but they are looking to use what they said to say that this puts them at war or in conflict with Justice Awich and therefore Justice Awich should recuse himself because of what they did."
Daniel Ortiz
"They created their own problem and they are seeking for the panel pf judges to bail them out, so to speak."
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"They are seeking for the panel of judges to yield to the pressure which they have created and get Justice Awich to basically back down from a situation of their creation and the court said no."
Daniel Ortiz
"The number of attorneys which was present in court and the reams of paper which we are assuming is case law is any indication this matter will take a while to be argued to completion. Can you speak to us on that?"
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"It will not take a while because the court; the president and the other judges - quite properly decided that this will take I think 14 hours, is the figure he used and he has assigned a number of hours to each side and that will be the end of it. It is with respect proper case management for a court to do something like that."
Daniel Ortiz
"So, it is expected that this will finish Wednesday the latest?"
Denys Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"By Wednesday evening, the president was very clear on that. He had said Wednesday morning first and then because of the applications made this morning decided Wednesday evening. It has a definite time."
The arguments from all the attorneys are expected to finish on Wednesday evening.
Email
Print