And in more BTL Litigation....Jeffrey Prosser, he’s one of ghosts of the Musa administration’s failed attempt to introduce competition in the phone industry, and he continues to haunt BTL. In court this morning Lois Young appeared for Prosser’s to ask the Supreme Court to delay an attempt by Telemedia to liquidate his Belize Telecom Limited.
Young’s argument to Justice John Muria was that Telemedia’s sole purpose for the court action was to “wipe out” Belize Telecom and thereby “annihilate” the constitutional challenge that Prosser and others filed in June 2007 against Telemedia. In that claim, Prosser, Bobby Lubana, the Public Services Union, the Belize National Teachers Union and Belize Telecom Limited assert that the Vesting Act which dissolved Belize Telecommunications Limited and spawned Belize Telemedia Limited is unconstitutional. Appearing in court this morning for Telemedia was attorney Eamon Courtenay who disputed Young’s submissions and maintained that any ruling made in the winding up of Belize Telecom would not prejudice the constitutional case. Courtenay says all his clients want is their money, the fourteen million dollars which it was awarded as part of a default judgment against the Prosser group.
After hearing both sides, Justice Muria told the court that his decision was not an easy one as both attorneys had presented strong legal arguments. But after considering all points, Muria ruled in favour of Prosser and Young Barrow and granted the adjournment of the liquidation, pending the resolution of the constitutional claim. Following the proceedings, attorney Lois Young told us that despite some delays, she’s satisfied with how the case for constitutional redress is being handled.
Lois Young, Prosser’s Attorney
“It’s taking its course but all the objections are coming from Telemedia, they are the ones slowing down the process. The courts are working along, we’re going along but ah…”
Janelle Chanona,
You mentioned this morning that this move today to wind up is an attempt to wipe out 292?
Lois Young, Prosser’s Attorney
“Absolutely this is the plan, if you wind up Belize Telecom then the substantive part of claim 292 has gone.”
Janelle Chanona,
And what of their case that 'look, all we want is our fourteen million'?
Lois Young
“They can’t get fourteen million and they know it. That was a default judgment. There are no assets for Belize Telecom. This is just a ruse, this is a ruse to derail Belize Telecom’s claim for constitutional redress.”
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney, Belize Telemedia
“It is a question of whether or not Mr. Prosser is telling the truth that the company has no assets. Now a company that owes fourteen million may have assets of let’s say, five hundred thousand and the creditor will want that five hundred thousand. The statement that I can’t pay the $14 million doesn’t mean that you can’t a pay part of it, that’s the first point. The second point and the more fundamental one in relation to 292, which is about the shares that Mr. Prosser never paid for, never paid for, in BTL, in that case as you know, he defaulted to RBTT has sold their shares. So here is this man who has never bought any shares still trying to maintain cases in court and saying at the same time I have no assets and I can’t pay fourteen million but I still want to maintain at court. In our view these are matters which independent persons need to go in and find out whether in fact or not this is true.”
And while the liquidation of Belize Telecom has been adjourned until the constitutional matter is settled, the validity of the claim itself is being challenged. Next week Telemedia will seek leave to appeal Muria’s decision to even hear the case. According to Courtenay, his clients maintain that Prosser is not a shareholder in Belize Telecom Limited and so he has no standing to argue against the Vesting Act. Viewers will recall that in 2007, the Musa Administration passed the Vesting Act which dissolved the old BTL and set up Telemedia, for the purpose of ousting Prosser and eliminating the so-called entrenched right he enjoyed by ownership of the special share.
It is of note that at the time, then Leader of the Opposition now Prime Minister Barrow called the Vesting Act unconstitutional. If he maintains that position it is pivotal because government is the defendant in the claim questioning the constitutionality of the Vesting Act. If this new Government refuses to defend the constitutionality of the Act, well then all kinds of chaos could unravel around Telemedia’s corporate affairs.
