_{Photo: Sugar Mill at BSI, Tower Hill, Orange Walk}

The claimants sought a declaration that 11 provisions of the Sugar Industry (License to Import and Export Sugar) Regulations 2023 were unconstitutional, null, and void – the court allowed 5.

by Marco Lopez

BELIZE CITY, Thurs. March 7, 2024

The constitutional claim brought by the Belize Sugar Industries (BSI) and Corozal Sugar Cane Producers Associations (CSCPA) challenging several provisions within the Sugar Industry (License to Import and Export) Regulations 2023 has been partially allowed.

Justice Rajiv Goonetilleke handed down a written judgment this week allowing 5 of the 11 declarations sought by the claimant against four defendants – the Attorney General; Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jose Mai; Sugar Industry Control Board; and the Controller of Supplies.

This application was brought on May 29, 2023, to the High Court, just days after the regulations were gazetted under the hand of the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jose Mai.

This constitutional claim sought to challenge those regulations, the claimants arguing that they infringed on their right to privacy, right to work, and equal protection under the law. CSCPA, the sugar cane association that just recently branched off from the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA), sought a declaration that the regulations were irrational, ad hominem, and aimed at BSI directly.

The reasoning behind the regulations, as interpreted by the judgment, was to have BSI, the main exporter of sugar, disclose its contract, and for BSI to act as a conveyor of the Fairtrade premiums to the associations.

In essence, the claimants argued that the regulations were inherently biased against the organization. This claim was rejected by the High Court, which determined that despite the proximity of the Minister of Agriculture with the BSCFA – being a member himself – there was sufficient balance in the composition of the SICB between government, ex-officio members, representatives from the mills, and associations.

The argument that the subsidiary legislation was ad hominem legislation aimed at BSI directly, was also not upheld by the court.

Regulation 16 of the Sugar Industry 2023 sought to require BSI to collect Fairtrade premiums for sugar sold to its buyers (in this case, Tate and Lyle). They were to distribute these premiums to the sugar cane producers. The clause enabled immediate revocation of license in the event of failure to pay.

This regulation was seen as a silver bullet for BSCFA farmers, whose association, after a breakdown in relations with the main buyer of Belizean-produced sugar, London-based Tate and Lyle (TSL), was not afforded a renewed Fairtrade contract by the buyer.

The court in its judgment pointed out that the buyers of Fairtrade premiums can make payment directly to farmers by way of a contract with those farmers’ associations. In the matter of the BSCFA, this was initially the case. The buyer can also, alternatively, send the money for the Fairtrade premiums to the sugar mill or exporter in Belize, who would then make payments to farmers.

These Fairtrade payments are made separately from cane sale payments and paid at a later time. Since BSCFA has no contract with either the buyer (TLS) or the exporter, BSI, it has not benefited from Fairtrade premiums on the sugar sold from their farmers’ produce.

The judgment states, “This has caused anxiety among the farmers of BSCFA, the largest farmers’ association in Belize. Both TLS and BSCFA are not parties to this Claim. From the pleadings and documents before this court, it is apparent that, though they receive no premiums, BSCFA has doubts about whether the sugar produced from sugar cane supplied by them is sold at market as Fairtrade sugar. BSCFA does not receive Fairtrade premiums because they do not have a renewed contract with TLS for payment of the premiums.”

The court however found that Regulation 16 was in violation of BSI’s right to protection of the law, and was struck down by the High Court.

Also found null and void by the court was Regulation 5(1)b, which obliged BSI to disclose import and export contracts.

Provision 5(2) touched on the requirements of disclosure of the amount of sugar and premiums and benefits due to each certified producer. The court upheld that that figure cannot be known by the exporter at the time of applying for licenses, and as such was in violation of their right of protection under the law. 

Regulations 21 and 22, which gave directives on the granting of shipping permits and disclosures of all contracts between the licensee and its buyers, respectively, were also struck down by the High Court as they were in breach of the right to privacy. 

While BSI and the CSCPA were not completely successful in their action to have more of the provisions within the Sugar Industry (License to Import and Export Sugar) Regulations 2023 struck down, key provisions which would have obliged them to disclose information and make Fairtrade payments to farmers of the BSCFA were found to be null and void. 

Since this constitutional claim was only partially successful, the claimants are entitled to 2/3 of the cost of the action, which will be agreed upon.