As we told you last night, there was a major ruling in the Supreme Court which changes the balance of power in the Sugar Industry.
First, Justice Patricia Farnese found that the Sugar Industry Control Board - which is the Industry's Regulator - can no longer impose a levy on BSI because it's unconstitutional. That's major because that levy amounts to about a million dollars a year and it funds the SICB's operations. But, BSI's attorney Godfrey Smith explained that the judge found that SICB - as a government entity has no business meddling in the commercial relations of private entities, namely BSI as the miller and the cane farmers. He explained at his office today:
Godfrey Smith, Attorney for ASR/BSI
"The Sugar Industry Control Board, which is at the heart of the sugar industry that its ability to demand of BSI that it pay an annual levy of about 50% of its expenses which amounts to something, don't hold me to these figures, but it fluctuates around a million dollars annually for the operation of the Sugar Industry Control Board and its agencies that that levy, that imposition is unconstitutional."
"So that's the most significant finding coming out of this, that SICB revenue streams for its operation is unconstitutional null and void. A possible run-on effect of that. If a court declares, listen, that law, that section of the law under which you have been taking a million or so from somebody each year null and void, didn't exist. The obvious implication is that you might have to return those monies and I'm not quite sure going back for how long. So it has very significant ramifications. They are dealing with 2 private entities and this is the only scenario in Belize in which the state, the government intervenes and try to regulate to such an extreme extent."
"So you ask me to outline the contours and you might say, well why now, because this situation has been in place for decades as you know, but there was an ability to strike a happy medium. That has changed and so the BSI, my clients decided, well look, if this how its going to be, we're going to challenge those aspects that are unconstitutional."
So now will BSI sit with the SICB to come up with another straight business arrangement to continue to fund its operations? The company put out a statement today saying, "BSI strongly believes that regulation should encourage positive reform and industry modernization." So does that positive reform contemplate a role for the SICB? Smith doesn't seem to feel they are really that necessary:
Jules Vasquez
"Would your client now be disposed to sit with the SICB and determine an annual payment or agreement that can be reached for them to continue to fund the good SICB, the important industry regulator."
Godfrey Smith, Attorney for ASR/BSI
"Well now you raised an important point. Most of the functions of the SICB can be handled by the Ministry of Agriculture. That's what a ministry of agriculture exists for. So, as I said the less I be misinterpreted, we are not attempting to say there is no need for regulation. There is need for appropriate regulation where it is necessary, where it serves as specific purpose where there is a public interest."
