It has been 7 months since Luke Espat was ejected as the owner of the Port of Belize Limited by his creditors, affiliates of the Ashcroft Alliance. Still, Espat's shadow lurks over the company.
Way back in 2007, Port of Belize Limited, along with Belize Ports Limited, 2 companies previously associated with Espat, filed a claim against the Attorney General claiming breach of contracts.
According to the claimants, GOB breached the Belize City Port licensing agreement of January 2002, the Commerce Beight Port Lease of 2002, the January 2002 Prospectus, the Share Purchase Agreement of March 2002, the Cruise Terminal Agreement of April 2004, the Privatization Cooperation Agreement of December 2005.
All of these contracts and agreements were made between Espat and the then-Musa Administration - and - typical of the era - the documents were not made public.
And still, the information on these agreements have not been forth-coming but what 7News understands from these contracts, particularly the Share Purchase Agreement and the Privatization Cooperation Agreement, are that the Musa administration made certain commitments to the privately owned Port of Belize to have certain tax exemptions in relation to items such fuel and lubricants. Among those tax exemptions included a business tax at the rate of 1.25%, stamp duties, import duties and sales tax - what might be characterized as special arrangements.
Well, the government changed, and none of these concessions were ever put in place, and as a result, the claimants took GOB to court claiming damages.
This brings us to today, where the attorney for the claimant, Eamon Courtenay, and the attorney for the respondent, Denys Barrow, presented their legal arguments to Justice Bertram.
There were 2 witnesses called to the stand to testify: Arturo Tux Vasquez, the PBL's current receiver, and Joseph Waight, the Financial Secretary for the Ministry of Finance.
Waight made certain amendments to his witness statement, and Courtenay immediately started drilling him with questions related to his dealings with the Port of Belize.
It's was a complex back and forth, and so, for clarity, we spoke to attorney Denys Barrow. Here's how he explained why this matter is before the courts:
Denys Barrow
"This case is by two private entities which own the Port of Belize and the Commerce Bight Port and it concerns allegations made by these two companies that the government of Belize has breach I think 5 different agreements and they are claiming declarations of breach and they are claiming damages against the government of Belize."
"It's an amusing thing, the claimants are Belize Ports Limited and Ports of Belize Limited, two Luke Espat companies, but the amusement is that Mr. Luke Espat companies have been ceased by certain lending companies and they - both companies are now under receivership by Mr. Arturo Tux Vasquez and Mr. Luke Espat you notice is significantly absent today and he obviously not cooperating with the receiver in bringing these close."
"The breaches are essentially claiming that the government did not do certain things which the government had promise to do, principally that the government did not pass legislation to enable certain things to take place most specifically to collect monies from users of the port to grant exemptions in relations to taxes etc. to give freehold title to the Commerce Bight Port and that kind of thing."
"We don't know that they have suffered any damage quite frankly and the government has not accept that legislation should have been passed in many instances and in relation to other instances even if it was contemplated that legislation should have been passed the reality is that the then prime minister and the then minister of budget planning had absolutely no entitlement - no legal right to say to anybody that the national assembly would pass any law. The passing of laws is not a matter for the executive, it's not a matter that a minister can promise to do, it is something which the national assembly decides to do."
We also attempted to speak to Courtenay outside of court, but he declined comment. This matter continues on July 20.
