And while the sordid mess of government's telecommunications tangle is now laid bare, you may wonder, how did it come to this? Well, when the Ashcroft-controlled BTL imposed new rates on phone users in December of 2001, certain players in government felt it was personally and politically expeditious to encourage the idea of competition in the telephone business. And they didn't have to push it far. With emotions still raw from the rate imposition, all agreed, the telecom industry needed competition to save consumers from a BTL that had become bullish and just plain chancey to consumers. But how did BTL, a company that was privatized with the idea of a local control, become a fierce beast on the leash of International profiteers? Well it was the same government which had become disapproving of BTL, that countenanced, facilitated and legitimized Michael Ashcroft's take-over of BTL between 1993 and 2000.
Well now it's 2005 and a lot has changed, but a lot more hasn't and the Communication Workers Union wants to prove the private takeovers were all wrong from the get-go. Today, the Union's new attorney Michael Peyrefitte filed an application in the Supreme Court. He's hoping to prove that neither Michael Ashcroft nor Jeffrey Prosser can legally be what are called "permitted persons." According to BTL's Articles of Association, a permitted person is allowed to own and control more than 25% of the company. First the Price administration in 1993 and then the Musa administration in 2002 made Ashcroft and Prosser permitted persons allowing them to take control and have their way with Belize's wealthiest company. Well now the unions say it was and is illegal and hope to prove that point emphatically in court. Peyrefitte today told us what they are asking for and what are the implications.
Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney for BCWU
"We feel that a permitted person can only be the holder of the British Telecom's shares, better known as the B shares, a Minister of government, a trustee company formed by the employees of the company BTL, and any other person acting on the written authority of the Government of Belize. Now this is where the big question comes in, when you say on the written authority of the Government of Belize what does that mean? Taken the articles as a whole, we have determined that it has to mean that a person acting on the written authority of the Government of Belize means a person acting on behalf of the government and under the guidance and direction of the government of Belize and not in their own private capacity because the objective of the articles is to ensure that the people of Belize, in some form, own and operate BTL. The other application we did was for an injunction. What we want to ask the court for is for the court to not transfer any shares to any entity, whether as a single entity or as a group of entities. We don't want them to have any shares that will put them over 25% until the court decides what exactly is a permitted person."
And to further illustrate his point on the prohibition on permitted persons status for private investors, Peyrefitte adds that Ashcroft was effectively barred form activating that status between 1993 and 1998 even after the Minister of Finance George Price granted him that status two days before the 1993 election.
Michael Peyrefitte,
"During the time when the UDP was in government, the then Chairman refused to allow this to be done and that is why I have said that Michael Ashcroft knew the only way he could control BTL was under the PUP, because under the UDP we made it very clear that we had to follow the Articles of Association of BTL and those articles prevented him from owning more than 25%. So all of those transactions were illegal because they were in contravention of the Articles of Association."
Jules Vasquez,
So Michael Ashcroft should never have owned controlling interests in BTL?
Michael Peyrefitte,
"Never because the Articles of Association are clear. The people of Belize will be the victors in this fight, not necessarily any one particular group. We have got to let it be clearly known that Michael Ashcroft nor Jeff Prosser nor any of these individuals can own more than what they are permitted to own under the Articles of Association."
Peyrefitte is hoping for an injunction hearing as soon as possible. If an injunction were to be granted, it would block Ashcroft's E-com from buying any more shares.
