Appeals Court ruling keeps Smart on the line
Eamon Courtenay
As our newscast ended at seven-thirty Monday night, a ruling was made in the Telemedia appeal against Speednet, the owner of SMART. The Appeals Court panel of Justices Manuel Sosa, Elliot Motley and Dennis Morrison decided to uphold an original ruling by Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh in favor of Smart. That means SMART’s services will continue uninterrupted by Telemedia. It was a highly unusual sitting and that point was not lost on Speednet’s attorney, Eamon Courtenay. As we said on Monday night, the Court of Appeal comes to Belize three times a year with the date’s published well advance in the government’s gazette. The date for 2010’s first sitting is the first of March. So the timing of the sitting was unprecedented and came at the request of Telemedia’s attorney, Lois Young. Courtenay said that though it was highly irregular, the Justices had to do the right thing and uphold an injunction until the trial is heard.
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for Speednet
“We had indicated to the court that we saw nothing in the reason given by Telemedia why they should be given preferential treatment. There is nothing special or different about Telemedia than any other litigant who has a case waiting for appeal. So we opposed it as strong as we could. Our other point was that you can’t do this process simply by writing a letter and asking for a favor. If you are going to do this you must do a proper court application and show the court urgency and then the court may decide whether it is going to hear the case on an urgent basis. On this particular case, the Court of Appeal, I believe because they were here already, they decided to hear the appeal. They overruled our objection and heard the Telemedia appeal. But it is a case of concern to me because it means other clients of mine will be saying the same thing; if it is okay for Telemedia, then it is okay for them and I don’t know whether the court will be flying out simply at the request of clients. Telemedia appealed as is their right. And the Court of Appeal heard their appeal on an urgent basis. I think what impressed the judges of the Court of Appeal is the same thing that impressed the Chief Justice and it is this: if Telemedia is doing what is right and they have the law on their side, then we have a trial set for the ninth and tenth of February. Maintain the status quo until the trial. The court will determine who is right and who is wrong. If Telemedia is right, they will be given damages so that it is not a situation where ninety thousand subscribers would be left with no service or should be treated in the way that Telemedia is treating them and the court sits by and the PUC sits by and everybody suffers. That is not the way you organize and order a society. There must be a rule of law and there must be protection for everybody pending the trial.”
Jose Sanchez
“Now, the PUC is the regulatory body. Where do they play into it now that the trial is pending?”
Eamon Courtenay
Well, I think the PUC has shown its bias and has shown that it is totally in favour of what Telemedia wants to do. If you look at what has been published by the PUC as what they intend to do, it is in effect saying that any service provider must do business with Telemedia. It is saying that the towers and insulations that Telemedia has, Speednet is going to be forced by the PUC to do business and to use that type of infrastructure. Now, that type of activity is perhaps acceptable in Venezuela where you have President Chavez. It is not acceptable in Belize. We have a constitution and Smart, like anybody else, is entitled to use their own towers, it is entitled to invest their money where they want.”
The trial date is set for February ninth to tenth. Also appearing on behalf of SMART, was Andrew Marshalleck. Attorneys for the government controlled Telemedia, were Rodwell Williams of the Barrow and Williams law firm and Deanne Barrow.
