Email

Print

Big news coming out of the Court of Appeal today is that Belize Telemedia has lost its attempt to quash the constitutional case filed against the controversial Vesting Bill of 2007. Viewers may recall that in a remarkable piece of corporate legislation, in May of 2007 the Musa administration passed the Vesting Bill, simultaneously dissolving Belize Telecommunications Limited and creating Belize Telemedia Limited.

Belize Telecom, the Jeffrey Prosser controlled company as well as the Public Service Union and the Belize National Teachers Union went to the Supreme Court to complain that the Attorney General deprived them of their constitutionally protected rights to property and then improperly compensated them by issuing new shares in Telemedia, a move which also violated their freedom of association rights.

The case was put before Justice John Muria but before the attorneys could get to the heart of the matter, Telemedia’s lawyer, Eamon Courtenay filed a motion, asserting that in the days following the approval of the Vesting Bill, Belize Telecom had defaulted on its responsibility to the Royal Bank of Trinidad and Tobago and the bank has subsequently sold the company’s shares in what is now Telemedia. According to Courtenay, because Belize Telecom was no longer a shareholder, Prosser’s beef with the government was of no public significance.

Courtenay also alleged that as for the PSU and BNTU, both were in fact participating as shareholders Telemedia’s affairs, collecting dividend cheques and attending board meetings. With that Telemedia then asked Muria to strike out the case. But Muria didn’t buy the argument and reinforced his position by refusing to grant Telemedia leave to appeal his decision. Still, Telemedia, never one to back down from its position, then applied to the Court of Appeal for that leave and a stay of the proceedings before Muria until a determination had been made.

In rebutting Courtenay’s points, Lois Young representing all the claimants, maintained that the strike out application was premature. Young contended that Muria was absolutely right when he said that before the issue of whether Telecom is a shareholder or not is considered, the issue of whether the Vesting Act is a valid piece of legislation must be determined.

Justices Sosa, Carey and Mottley agreed with Young and refused Telemedia’s applications. This now paves the way for the case to proceed in the Supreme Court. Viewers should note that like the UHS loan note and settlement deed case, the Attorney General is not planning to mount a ‘vigorous defense’ basically because, it agrees with the claimants.