Former Attorney General and People’s United Party Freetown Area Representative, Francis Fonseca, wrote us via e-mail on Friday, August 28, 2009, saying, “I wish to point out for the record and for your own information that I DID NOT in fact sign or witness or certify the Accommodation Agreement.”
The agreement referred to was originally signed in 2005 and amended with subsequent agreements leading up to 2008 – signed principally by former Prime Minister Said Musa as then head of Cabinet with Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL).
Fonseca’s rebuttal is a direct response to our report on the Monday, August 24, proceedings of the House of Representatives. At that meeting, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Dean Barrow, charged that he, Fonseca, had signed a series of agreements as Attorney General under the Said Musa administration. Barrow said that in certain cases, including the accommodation agreement with BTL, Fonseca issued an opinion and certification as Attorney General for agreements.
“I point this out not to distance myself from the actions of my Government – anyone who knows me knows that is not my style – but simply to correct a material misstatement of fact often repeated by you and your newspaper. I allow for certain liberties in the House, because we are there engaged in political battles, but I think it is reasonable for me to expect the media to be fair and accurate,” Fonseca also wrote.
Fonseca also challenged us, saying that we must not have seen the accommodation agreement – but in fact, we have seen a set of documents, which have collectively been described by the Barrow administration as “the accommodation agreements.” At least two of them bear signatures above Attorney General of Belize – these being titled “Settlement in Relation to Government Telecommunications Accommodation Agreement” and its amendments of 2005.
We note that since the accommodation agreements were released in 2008, Fonseca had not disputed reports from then that he had signed onto any of the documents – at least not until now, and most notably, he did not challenge Mr. Barrow’s statement at the August 24, 2009 House meeting.
We do concede, however, to the possibility that someone may have forged Fonseca’s signature – and therefore we asked him for the record on Friday: “Can you say whether you signed any documents at all (as Attorney General) regarding the agreements between Government and BTL (dating back to 2005 and leading up to 2008)?”
It might not surprise you that we are still awaiting a reply to our e-mail a week later.
In responding to Fonseca’s e-mail, we suggested to him that, “…if you believed the statements Mr. Barrow made in the House on Monday to be patently false, then you should have stated that then and there. That is because those proceedings are carried live on national radio, and as much as you have taken issue with the information presented by the Amandala, it would have certainly helped for you to take that stand at the appropriate time. (That is not to say that your statement is too late, of course.)”
Our newspaper did contact Mr. Barrow earlier this week regarding Fonseca’s claim that he did not sign the accommodation agreement, and Barrow said that indeed, there were an entire set of documents, including amendments to the original agreement, and Fonseca’s signature appearing on any of the documents as Attorney General was an indication that he, as Attorney General, was giving a legal imprimatur (sanction), telling BTL that they can rely on the agreement as having the full legal weight and authority of the government behind it.
We note that the 2006 settlement agreement in relation to the 2005 accommodation agreement, which carries a signature above Fonseca’s title (purporting to be his), states explicitly that it is supplement to the original 2005 document, indicating that the entire set of agreements were treated as a collective.
The document says that the government was agreeing to procure that the PUC not give effect to the Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) regulatory policy and framework guidelines of June 2006. In that document, BTL was claiming a shortfall of $7 million and demanded that the government meet the payment, under the terms of the agreement, by December 2006.
In January 2008, the month before the Musa administration ended its term of office, they entered into another agreement with Belize Telemedia Limited. The company was claiming a further shortfall of $11 million due November 2007.
Those two agreements sanctioning payments to Telemedia, in fulfillment of the terms of the original agreement that the Government would pay BTL if it did not make a 15% return on investment, had signatures purporting to be those of former Prime Minister Said Musa, and Fonseca. (Musa has not denied public allegations that he gave those agreements to BTL.)
If indeed Fonseca did not sign any of those agreements, then one could assume that it is one more argument that the government could use to bolster its stance that it will not honor them.
Of note is that the documents carry a Belize Telemedia Limited seal and claim to have been witnessed by Glenn Longsworth, J.P. (We tried to reach Longsworth this morning at his home number, but were told by the person answering the phone that he was at work at Ralph Fonseca’s Belize City office.)
The Barrow administration had claimed that the accommodation agreements that we have cited were the documents forwarded to them by BTL, as they could not locate any of those documents at their offices, anywhere in Belmopan.
The agreements had a punitive secrecy clause, but were released after the Barrow administration amended the Freedom of Information Act to outlaw secrecy in government contracts, except in a few cases for national security purposes.
Since 2008, the accommodation agreements had sparked a series of court battles between the Government and Belize Telemedia Limited, leading most recently to a $35.8 million judgment against the Government by the London Court of International Arbitration.
Prime Minister Barrow has told us that his administration would not pay that award, as it continues to contend that the agreements signed with BTL were both immoral and illegal.
The government has cited disputes over the accommodation agreements as one of the reasons why it had moved on Tuesday, August 25, to forcibly acquire BTL from its former owners – a series of companies controlled by British billionaire and financier for the ruling party leading up the 2008 elections, Michael Ashcroft.
Barrow had claimed that the takeover would put an end to the onslaught of litigation, but Ashcroft’s allies have indicated that they intend to challenge the constitutionality of the takeover, and they have said via a press release that they have moved to have the Supreme Court enforce the $35.8 million London judgment, insisting that the accommodation agreements are valid and binding.
The day before the takeover (while Barrow tabled the enabling amendment in the House of Representatives on August 24), he announced that Ashcroft’s lawyers had written to say that they would accept government’s repudiation of the agreement – and hence there would be no need for the takeover.
Barrow’s response was that the issues in dispute go beyond the said accommodation agreements.