Ever since Prime Minister Dean Barrow announced the full details of the final BTL settlement with the Ashcroft Alliance, the Opposition has been criticizing it as a very poor deal.
You've already heard from Opposition Leader John Briceno, and PUP Area Rep. Kareem Musa, and today, the party dispatched senior counsel Eamon Courtenay who was a guest on the KREM Wake Up Belize morning talkshow.
For almost the entire 7 years that this dispute has been dragging on in court, Courtenay been one of the lead attorneys representing the Ashcroft Alliance. Today, we spoke to him after the talk show about his issues concerning the BTL settlement. Here's what he had to say:
Sen. Eamon Courtenay - Attorney
"I believe that the settlement was not in the interest of Belize; I think it took too long. All the things that the Ashcroft Group of Companies were asking for they got and I cannot understand why it is after millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in legal fees and millions of dollars in interest have been accrued that we just go to Miami and concede everything on the BCB loan concede virtually everything on the shares and agree to pay it all within a year. I think it's a complete concession by the government and I think the people of Belize want an explanation at the exorbitant 550 million dollars that has to be paid."
"Let us remember in 2009, August 25th when the Prime Minister went to the National Assembly, he gave us his rational; the accommodation agreement. The accommodation agreement has never been challenged by the government; the government has never gone to court and said this agreement is unlawful. If that was the document that was a problem, the proper thing to do was to go to court and to seek to have it declared unlawful. Now what we have is an arbitral tribunal which says it is valid and another arbitral tribunal that is saying there's a value between 200 to 300 million dollars that is attributed to that accommodation agreement. It is passing strange that there are two cases; one brought by the ACB and Senator Hulse and another brought by the PUC challenging the accommodation agreement. These were filled in March 2009 and those two cases have never come to trail. The government has not allowed those cases to come to trail. If those cases have been tried, you would have had a judgement by 2010 and it would have said that the accommodation agreement is either valid or it is not valid. If it was held to be unlawful then this 200 to 300 million we are paying for the accommodation agreement, we wouldn't have to pay. So I am saying that the way in which the government have gone about this has been negligent, has been in dereliction of duty."
"Why is it that what Mr. Barrow agreed in Miami in September 2015 he could not have agreed way back in 2009? Owners to Telemedia were insisting that they wanted to go to arbitration to determine the value of the shares; that is what they were arguing, we want to go to arbitration to determine the value. That could have been done in 2009, could have been done in 2010. You remember they amended the law to say that if you advise, participate, do anything in relation to an arbitration you're guilty of contempt. They got injunctions that had to go all the way to the CCJ to stop the arbitration; eventually the CCJ said you cannot stop the people from going to arbitration. The point I am making is that the very thing that the government fought all against, having arbitrators determine the value is exactly what Mr. Barrow agreed to in September 2015 in Miami. We spent millions upon millions of dollars, we accrued hundreds of millions of dollars in interest and we ended up exactly where we should have been in the very beginning."
Of course, he speaks now as a member of the PUP, but those same inside connections to the case may also put him in a precarious position. Over the years, Courtenay has been handsomely paid by Ashcroft as one of his attorneys in this case. So, why criticize the end result when he was fighting so hard in court for a similar outcome? That's what we asked, and here's how he answered:
Daniel Ortiz
"You were arguing on behalf of Lord Ashcroft and his companies so how now since you're client has won and gotten the benefit of this particular dispute that you can complain against the veracity of it?"
Sen. Eamon Courtenay - Attorney
"I am complaining as a PUP Senator, as a member of the PUP executive and as a Belizean. I emphasize to you again what happened in Miami was a surrender, a negotiated surrender by the prime minister. It wasn't a judgement of the CCJ, it wasn't a judgement arbitral tribunal; it wasn't a judgement of our courts. That was something that was negotiated and I am entitled to criticize what was negotiated by the prime minister because I do not believe that it is in the interest of Belize and we 550 million dollars to pay as a result of that concession."
Daniel Ortiz
"But sir persons who we've spoken to have the impression that you've become quite wealthy off this particular legal case going through the courts for some 7 or 8 years in the past."
Sen. Eamon Courtenay - Attorney
"And the complaint is what?"
Daniel Ortiz
"That you've become more wealthy over this case and for you to complain now it might come off as sort of hypocritical."
Sen. Eamon Courtenay - Attorney
"I've been called much worse than that so that wouldn't strike me as strange. The point of the matter is Daniel and no one is going to silence me regardless of what you say and whatever you say. I'm a professional and I earn my fees and that's how I make my living and I make no apologize for that. What I will say is that I did not get a dollar from the government of Belize that is what I will say. I will go further and say that there is no issue for me representing any client that I choose to accept instructions from and if they pay me, they pay me and I make no apology for that. I have a difficulty however with the prime minister of Belize arguing and fighting against the Ashcroft Group of Companies and his law firm at the same time continuing to represent the same companies that he is saying are so demonic and that they are bad for Belize. That is the conflict of interest that requires an explanation. As to me that's the way I make my living and I do it to the best of my ability every time for all my clients."
Email
Print