And while it was all glory and gloating in the house chamber - back here on earth - the Briceno administration got a slap down from the High Court earlier this week.
The court found that the Sugar Industry Import/ Export Regulations passed in mid May 2023 - was unconstitutional.
He found that the regulations contained in the law breached the right to work, the right to protection of the law and the right to privacy.
For context, the regulations required BSI to get a license to export sugar. And to do that it had to disclose all its contracts to the sugar Industry Control Board. And it had to do that every time it applied for a shipping permit.
It also required ASR/ BSI to to collect Fair Trade Premiums from Tate and Lyle in London and distribute its to the GROWER associations. BSI said that it had nothing to do with those premiums.
And the judge agreed - the law was too invasive. Godfrey Smith who appeared for ASR/BSI explained more today in a press briefing at his office:
Godfrey Smith, Attorney - ASR/BSI
"So it raises the question, why were these regulations promoted, promulgated? The government, SICB and ministry: it's just innocuous regulations to regulate sugar in Belize. We are regulators. We have to make sure things are run properly and so on. In reality - and this was BSI's argument - those regulations was merely a disguise to dig into the guts of BSI's private commercial affairs and to force BSI to do what it was impossible for BSI to do, which is to pay these fair trade premiums, which are not paid by BSI, they are paid by a London company called Tate and Lyle."
"And the court struck it down. In fact it characterized portions of the regulations as obnoxious, saying that it did interfere with BSI's right to information and privacy, that the regulations would interfere with BSI's right to work, and would interfere with its right to protection of the law because it amounted to an overreach."
Jules Vasquez
"Does it expose the government for trying to implement legislation that is willfully anti-business, obstructionist, statist and also invasive?"
Godfrey Smith, Attorney - ASR/BSI
"Well, yes, because when you get a chance to read the judgment, you will see clearly that the court has held that corporations, just as private individuals, have a right to their informational privacy."
"But the effect of the finding is that the government has used its legislative power in an invasive way, in a way that breached people's, BSI's right to its confidentiality and privacy of its commercial information."
Jules Vasquez
"Now, is the government exposed, or does the ruling expose the government for operating with what can be construed as actual malice against a private entity operating normally?"
Godfrey Smith, Attorney - ASR/BSI
"You can't glean that from the judgment. And so what I'm about to say next is not does not flow from or cannot be attributed to the judgment."
"I wouldn't go so far as to say malice, but in my view, it was a clear attempt. That piece of regulation was clear, naked attempt by SICB sugar industry control board and the Ministry of Agriculture to strongarm BSI and force them to do what the law doesn't allow. what the law doesn't allow."
"They would have a legitimate expectation that the government would not use its powers in this outrageous kind of way to bring them to heel and force their hands in order to favor the Cane Farmers Association, when really there should be, when really the SICB by the very sugar industry act - who is required to be impartial, neutral and to attempt to arbitrate in a in an impartial way in a dispute. But no such thing happened."
