Today in the Supreme Court, Attorneys for the Communication Workers Union, BTL, E-com, GOB and ICC gathered before the Chief Justice to argue the biggest case in the country: the pending sale of Government's BTL shareholdings to Michael Ashcroft's E-com. The Communication Workers contends that it would be illegal for E-com to own more than 25% of the company.
The major assertion of the day came from E-com's Attorney Lois Young-Barrow who argued that there is no live matter before the court because E-com does not presently own 25% or more of BTL, and does not intend to do so. Later on, the Solicitor General, agreeing with Young-Barrow, argued that this action by the union was premature, because no sale had been finalized between Government and E-com.
That's the issue that the Union Attorney Michael Peyrefitte had to answer and after a full day of hearings, he told us what his response was.
Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney for BTL Worker
"We're not allowed to have impressions. I mean really we have made our arguments, we have submitted our case, and the Chief Justice will now decide which way he will rule pursuant to those arguments. E-com Limited came this morning an indicated to the court that the proposal by the Government of Belize to sell the 12.5% in BTL to E-com is really only a proposal. We are saying that the National Assembly passing that resolution, it going to the Contractor-General, and the Attorney General saying that it's a matter of national interest-it's our argument that the sale is imminent. And since the sale is imminent, then it creates a live issue and there is a dispute in place for it to be decided upon. Those are the issues before the court right now. There was no objection to the Special Share argument by the Solicitor General, by E-com, by BTL, and naturally only by ICC because they own the Special Share. Those were the two issues that were essentially argued here today and we have to wait and see what the Chief Justice says on Thursday."
Jules Vasquez,
Is it a clever and artful strategy on behalf of E-com to say in the newspapers on Friday that we don't want 12%, we want 10% which would bring us to 25% which is not offending, which takes them out of your crosshair?
Michael Peyrefitte,
"No well you see they tricked themselves because the Articles of Association says 25% or more so it's not over 25%. The minute you hit 25% you become a relevant person and then you become the subject of a dispute because the articles doesn't say if you own more than 25%, it says if you own 25% or more. E-com already owns 15%, so if they exercise that right to buy 10% then they will own 25% and be the subject of a dispute."
Jules Vasquez,
Do you feel deflated by the Chief Justice's assertion it is not a live issue because no sale has gone through and it may be up to 10% but it may be 1%?
Michael Peyrefitte,
"Well he hasn't made his decision yet and quite fortunately the argument is not only about E-com, we're asking for a general declaration and Belize Telecom owns 37% of the shares so its not just about E-com. E-com is just more popular because of the National Assembly resolution but its not just about E-com, its about any person who would own more than 25% and Belize Telecom own more than 37% so that in itself would make it a live issue in my view. But nothing is to happen until we get a decision from the Chief Justice. We don't know which way he'll decide."
The Chief Justice has undertaken to give a ruling by Thursday. Of note is that both Michael Ashcroft and Jeffrey Prosser have entered affidavits before the court where they agree that Company Secretary Wilman Black and company attorney Michael Young had no directive or authority to respond to the union's application - because neither Prosser, nor Ashcroft as directors gave them orders to do so.
