It is not guaranteed in the Constitution but we have the right to take sides. In the case of Ashcroft vs Prosser, I am on the side of the people of Belize and, in this case, the interests of the people of Belize lie with Mr. Ashcroft. I don’t have to like the good gentleman to take his side but, if you say you’re a nationalist you can’t support Mr. Prosser.
Mr. Prosser is, in the parlance of people who gamble for money, a welcher. A welcher is a person who doesn’t pay what is due when called upon. Mr. Prosser welched on his promissory note and, when divested of his shares in BTL, succeeded in getting a foreign court to penalize the nation.
I don’t have to like Mr. Ashcroft’s taking the Government of Belize for a ride in his business dealings in the matter of BTL. In my judgement, the Government failed to protect the people’s interest but, I am told that Mr. Ashcroft is a very big and powerful man in the affairs of state. He is a member of the British House of Lords, is very, very wealthy and has a brace of first class legal advocates, local and international, on retainer. Mr. Ashcroft is prepared to take any issue in regard to BTL for final settlement to the Privy Council, where the quality of counsel’s arguments will determine the outcome. A good gambler will give you 7 to 5 if you are prepared to back G.O.B. in such a dispute.
Mr. Prosser is represented by eminent counsel too, both local and foreign, who are paid whether they win or lose in court. I can understand local counsel representing Mr. Prosser and doing everything in their power to sell his case to the public. According to the best legal traditions, this is what members of the profession are expected to do. I have to remark that no one should hold it against an attorney who takes up the cause of someone who has done harm to the nation.
Where BTL’s facing the combined unions which support the cause of Mrs. Christine Perriott is concerned, I have to support Mrs. Perriott. I do so even without hearing the grounds upon which the company acted. Assuming, of course, that there are grounds and, assuming also that these grounds are substantive, you could say that my position is based on prejudice. Still, if a company dismisses an employee who is the General Secretary of the union conducting negotiations with the company over, in their view, the improper dismissal of other workers, it would have taken a position very difficult to defend.
Because I am a nationalist, the idea of BTL being under foreign control is odious. Mr. Ashcroft is a national, but he has not been nationalistic. If he were, he would have reduced the telephone rates, which is a Government manifesto promise. He would not have lost anything. Traffic would have increased exponentially. That has been the result of reduced rates in telecommunication history.
Popular opinion seems to be against Mr. Ashcroft’s using his considerable resources to obtain political favours from the government. It is said that he contributes heavily to the treasuries of both major political parties, so he would be in the position of a benefactor whichever of the parties are elected to govern. If so, there is nothing ethically wrong with these tactics.
This is what any good businessman would do who plays for high stakes and who depends on the goodwill of governments to succeed in his ventures. After all, that is the nature of our free enterprise capitalist system. It is not an ideal state of affairs.