Smart granted judicial review

Andrew Marshalleck

In the other case of judicial review, Speednet, the owner of Smart, went head to head in court with the Public Utilities Commission this past Wednesday.  It started when Telemedia, as the dominant provider in the industry, set out to increase the fees it charges Smart, which would seriously jeopardize its share in the telecom market. The repercussion of that move would suggest an increase in costs that cell phone users would have to bear.  The background is that in December, the Public Utilities Commission (P.U.C.) issued a directive to Smart and B.T.L. to renegotiate all interconnection and lease agreements.  The P.U.C. was of the view that all the existing agreements between the telecom companies were void because neither parties submitted those documents for approval. In response to that, Smart took judicial review proceedings and sought permission from the court to review the P.U.C.’s decision to issue the directives. The application was heard yesterday and the Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh granted judicial review.

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Speednet/Smart

“In January in pursuance of the directive to renegotiate the agreements, the PUC had held a meeting between BTL and SMART personnel, and it was indicated in that meeting that  since the parties were unable to negotiate new agreements, the PUC would be intervening to set all the terms and conditions of interconnection between the parties. Including the rates to be charged for the various services provided pursuant to those agreements. In response to that, Smart applied for an injunction, and secured that injunction, restraining the PUC from proceeding to set those rates in the absence of regulation governing how those rates ought to be determined. Yesterday the application to continue that injunction also came on for hearing. The injunction was discharged and not continued. The chief justice has left the PUC free to regulate, in accordance with the Act, but while doing so it made it very clear to the lawyers for the PUC that it considered this determination that the agreements were null and void to and I quote in the language of the Chief Justice “not worth the paper it’s written on.” He also indicated very clearly, that while he’s leaving them freely to regulate as they should and as Smart is asking them to do, they need to do so in accordance with law.  And it’s not a matter of going and plucking rates from out the sky and saying this is what will be charged. There must be a reason, an analysis of cost, there must be the regulations and the rates must be set in the public interest.  Not in the interest of serving one party or the other.  So I think while the Chief Justice saw the need for the PUC to regulate, it also sent a very strong and clear message to the PUC that they need to look at the law closely and they need to ensure that when they’re regulating they are doing so in full compliance  with the various provisions of the law.”