Notably, Mr.Bowman had a splendid opportunity at the Special General Meeting to face the growers, as a man. But he sat totally silent. Now, two weeks later, safely away from the growers, he writes to the Amandala, in your last issue. Then, instead of sticking to the issues, he goes off into silly distractions, talking about ego and this one or that one hating him. The victimizer seeking sympathy by playing the victim.

His letter may fool city folk and, according to him, some bankers. But not growers. The single crop of fruits on the so-called old and worthless trees of the prime property at the time of his grabbing, allowed him to virtually pay the give-away price for the property. And his talk of hurricane damage to foreign citrus, which sent up the prices, not occurring until after his acquisition of the property, is total nonsense. Anyone with a little experience of the industry, especially Mr.Bowman with his 50 years experience, as he informed us in his letter, would have known that there was severe hurricane damage to grapefruit in Cuba, one of Belize?s main grapefruit competitors on the international market, well before the sale of the property was finalized, and so the price of grapefruit would go up. And why was the mad rush to give away the property, even to the point of allowing Mr.Bowman to occupy the property before the transaction was finalized?

Mr.Bowman speaks of being lucky, that is, to be able to grab the growers? property for a give-away price. Growers, bankers, and others who may be concerned ought to note that lucky situations can be created to allow for further grabbings. For instance, the scenario he has painted in his letter about CPBL not being able to sell the property that Belize Food Products purchased from D.Jenkins, is perfect to allow a crony to get lucky and grab that property for a give-away price. Growers will be watching.

Incidentally, the transaction between Belize Food Products and D.Jenkins was so clean, an open and impartial investigation would be welcomed. The facts will likely convict Mr.Bowman concerning property transactions that he has been involved with.

Mr.Bowman has found it difficult to accept the following:

1. I did not make myself the Lead Negotiator for the negotiations with CDC for the acquisition of the two factories for citrus growers. I was asked by the Board of Directors of CGA, particularly Mr.Frank Redmond, who was theChairman at the time.

2. Shortly after, Mr.Redmond in an open meeting stated that Mr.Bowman said that he would not serve on the negotiating team with me as Lead Negotiator. Presumably, he wanted to be the Lead Negotiator. But Mr.Redmond insisted, even when the Minister of Government responsible for Citrus, who called the meeting, disapproved of my lead role, saying I had the wrong colour. Mr.Redmond?s insistence went as far as emphatically stating that if Mr.Bowman did not want to serve on the team with me as Lead Negotiator, so be it, he is out.

3. At the Special General Meeting conspired to oust me from the Board of Directors of the CGA, Mr.Redmond declared to the gathering of growers that I was chosen as Lead Negotiator because I was the best man for the job.

4. The strategy for the negotiations with CDC was conceived by me. Against strong opposition from a foreign business consultant, who was supported by the other members of the negotiating team, I succeeded in saving growers some US$25 million in the acquisition of the two factories, based on the persistent

recommendation of the foreign consultant. I have documents to prove, despite Mr. Bowman?s efforts to discredit my contribution.

To bring to a head this back and forth between Mr. Bowman and me, since he declined to face the growers at the Special General Meeting, even though he had the distinct advantage of support from a biased Chairman, perhaps he will accept an invitation from the Kremandala Show for us to meet for a public discussion of the issues. In the meantime, Mr. Bowman is asked to respond to the following:

1. In the written offer to CDC [which I singlehandedly constructed] for the acquisition of the two factories, I purposefully mentioned that the employees of CPBL and the small citrus growers would each be offered 10% of the shares of CPBL. All members of the negotiating team gave nodded ascent. Why, four years after the acquisition, share offers to the employees and growers have not been made, even after I have offered to draft a share purchase scheme?

2. Why are growers kept in the dark concerning the proposed sale of 47% of the shares of CPBL to a foreign group? Such a transaction could easily make the ownership of the factories by growers just words.

3. As Chairman of the CGA, Mr.Bowman, without the knowledge, much less the approval, of the Board of Directors, signed an agreement with CPBL dated 15 September 2004, which nullified a commitment CPBL made for a certain guaranteed price for orange for the 2003/2004 citrus crop. He further committed growers to pay back 6 cents/lb solids to CPBL from their 2004/2005 orange price. After strong objection from me, and upon my suggestion, the Board of Directors agreed that growers would be given shares in CPBL in lieu of the deductions. This was minuted and growers were informed. Why, then, did Mr. Bowman go on to deceive growers by sending them certificates [bearing his signature] showing growers owning units in a Trust Fund instead of certificates of shares in CPBL, as was agreed? There was not a word of explanation, so that many growers still believe that the certificates they have represent shares in CPBL. To make matters worse, the Trust document, which no more than ten

growers have seen, indicates that maturity of the Trust Fund is one hundred [100] years after the establishment of the Trust in October 2005 [when all the present growers will be dead] or 21 years after the death of the last surviving descendant of King George V of England. How ridiculous!

Growers are taken to be idiots by Mr. Bowman.

Sincerely,

Denzil Jenkins, Citrus Grower