It was truly a battle of David versus Goliath; the Communication Workers Union against the state and its suitor for the BTL shares, Michael Ashcroft. And while biblical lore tells us David slew Goliath, today in the Supreme Court, Goliath had his way...and then some.
In a judgement that took an hour and a half to deliver, the Chief Justice found that there was no live issue to decide on - basically that because E-com does not presently own 25% or more of BTL he cannot give what is called an advisory judgement - a judgement on something that might happen but hasn't happened yet. With that declaration he lifted the injunction against the sale and government is free to conclude the transaction with Ashcroft where they hope to get between US$35 and US$40 million for 37% of BTL's shareholdings. Information Minister Godfrey Smith yesterday said that government hopes to conclude that sale by the end of the week.
The Chief Justice also ruled against the unions in its other application: that ICC cannot legally hold the golden share - a special share reserved for government which permits two seats on the board of directors. In March of last year, government sold this share to ICC for one dollar - a dollar which the Solicitor General noted still has not been paid. The Chief Justice criticized government for this sale calling it, "a big let down." Still he found that it had been legally, though regrettably, transferred to ICC and they were the rightful holders of it. Still, he called upon the government to get it back.
So in the end, the union lost on both of its applications, and that gave the winning attorney, Solicitor General Elson Kaseke cause to gloat, just a little, over his young adversary.
Elson Kaseke, Solicitor General
"Yes it is a resounding victory for the government of Belize. We always maintained that the government was correct. This was a premature application. That was my position was from the beginning. I think its unfortunate that Mr. Peyrefitte took the action which he took. He is a young attorney definitely and he will learn with these things."
Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney for BTL Workers
"When any judge of the court gives a judgement, all the parties involved just have to accept the judgement. If either party is not satisfied with the judgement, there are steps that can be taken to remedy the dissatisfaction. We can appeal if we want, we can take matters but as an attorney at law I have to follow the instructions of my client; in this case namely Gilbert Smith. So if Mr. Smith is not happy with the decision, then he would have to instruct me as to what he wants to do. So I wait on instructions from my client."
Janelle Chanona, Channel 5 News
"Are you asking that the interested party E-com sustain all the court costs?"
Michael Peyrefitte,
"No I'm not asking for them to sustain any cost, I am asking the court to make an order that each party pays its own cost. I am sure that Jeffrey Prosser can afford Lionel Welch. I am sure that Michael Ashcroft can afford Lois Young-Barrow, especially since E-com Limited has stated that it's a charity organization in the interest of alleviating poverty in Belize. And I am sure BTL, with its millions in cost and its millions wasted, certainly doesn't need a $1,000 from Gilbert Smith. So I am saying that everybody bears their own cost and everybody goes home, no cost ordered; that is what I'll be asking."
Jules Vasquez,
The Solicitor General has indicated previously that he will hold you all accountable for $15 million in damages and he told the court something to that effect just now that he wants to pursue damages. How do you respond?
Michael Peyrefitte,
"Why not $100 million? Why not $200 million? Why not $1 billion? The Chief Justice in the nicest possible way in the world told the Solicitor General, 'stop yuh foolishness.' He said this is a matter of national importance and given what was about to occur, it was important that he ordered the injunction on the 27th of June when he did. So essentially he is telling the Solicitor General it is a matter of national importance, don't bring any foolishness about damages or costs to my court."
Elson Kaseke,
"We will seriously consider the issue of damages. We might pursue them."
Jules Vasquez,
The Chief Justice advisedly gave you a caution because he called it public interest litigation.
Elson Kaseke,
"Yes but at the same time he did not close the door, the door is still open. It is left to us to decide as a government whether we want to enter the door and litigate that issue."
Jules Vasquez,
How resounding is a defeat like this for you all? There is no live issue, you went there to argue something that is not finalized. When there is a live issue the Chief Justice says you can bring it back.
Michael Peyrefitte,
"I act on instruction. In our view there was a live issue but in the Chief Justice's view there isn't a live issue where E-com is concerned. However we may feel that there is a live issue on some other aspect of the company itself and we may very well come back to this court again."
Jules Vasquez,
He also left the door open for Mr. Peyrefitte saying that when it is a live matter, his client may choose to reinstate an action.
Elson Kaseke,
"I take things a step at a time. When that time comes, if it comes, we will deal with it. I am sure we will find a way to deal with it."
Jules Vasquez,
Is it your understanding that the government intends to conclude this transaction immediately, post-haste?
Elson Kaseke,
"There is no post-haste with these things. It's a commercial transaction, it's an arms length bargaining in the process, and the government of course will have to look out for its interest. If it's in its best interest to conclude the agreement then I think there is no legal impediment now for the conclusion of the contracts."
This evening, Information Minister Godfrey Smith told us that 20% of the 37% remains available to the unions though the Sunshine Trust, managed and administered as an Ashcroft affiliate. It's an arrangement that the union has balked at because the understanding is that Ashcroft would still control the voting rights of those shares, so that they could vote in tandem with his various company's including E-com.
That so-called charitable trust, exposed last night on 7NEWS as (See Who is E-com) one more rather transparent corporate ruse, has not quite convinced the Chief Justice of its poverty alleviation intent. Discussing E-com so called charity in court, the Chief Justice said, "many sins are committed in the name of charity." What's left to be seen now is if any "sins" will unfold in the deal between E-com and government because we are informed that Ashcroft could request the same thing that Prosser got a 15% return on investment which would invariably drive phone rates higher.
