Government’s attorney says suit is an embarrassment to Supreme Court

In June of 2012, Justice Oswell Legall reaffirmed a previous ruling that the 2011 acquisition of Telemedia was null and void because the law passed attached itself to the provision in the 2009 amendment which was also declared void. So Justice Legall believed that to add new provisions unto a law that is void amounts to no change. But attorney for the government, Denys Barrow maintains that due to certain provisions of the eighth amendment, the vesting of the ownership and control of the property remained in government hands.  Barrow told the Court in arguments that the application by Dean Boyce and the British Caribbean Bank to the Caribbean Court of Justice is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and that it interfered with the national budget. He also spoke of the merits of case.

Denys Barrow, Attorney for Government

Denys Barrow

“What the CCJ did was to decide to keep things where they are in terms of the payment of dividends. The claimants, the applicants, had made an application asking the court to make an order preventing Telemedia, preventing government from voting in favor of dividends. And what the CCJ did is to decide that hold on; we don’t want to get into merits of this application at all because that will involve considering some issues which belong to another case which is pending before the Court of Appeal right now. Therefore they decide the appropriate thing is to decide that there will not be any decision as to the declaration of dividends—that is to be put off. So government is not restrained from declaring dividends, but government is in fact restrained or directed to put this thing off until the date this year, which would be one year from when the last general meeting was held; so keep things as they are.  The point which we were making is that there were two acquisitions: the 2009 and the 2011. The 2009 acquisition was struck down and the case which is before the CCJ right now is that when the Court of Appeal struck down the 2009 acquisition, it did not give them any award of damages; it did not make an order saying that you the former owners can go back in and take back the management and control of the company. So they are before the CCJ saying that an order should have been made by the Court of Appeal for that. What we are saying since that 2009acquisition that which was struck down, the government went back in 2011 and acquired the thing all over again. The 2011 acquisition is not before the CCJ. So this is the point we were making.  If out of the 2011 acquisition they want something such as an order restraining the payment of dividends or an order to give them the dividends or to pay it in the Trust, come to the Court of Appeal of Belize or the Supreme Court of Belize; don’t go to the CCJ. And what the CCJ decided is listen, we don’t need to get into any of this; just wait until December when things have a chance to evolve further in Belize.”

According to the financial reports to be presented on Friday, Telemedia’s earnings dropped by thirteen million dollars and while the AGM will be proceeding, it is restrained from paying dividends.