Court of Appeal says the case can proceed in lower court

The nationalization of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) has spawned multiple legal disputes, and on Friday, the Court of Appeal directed that the case lodged by media personality Glenn Tillett, against former chairman of the Belize Social Security Board (SSB) – Lois Young-Barrow and Nestor Vasquez, chairman of the SSB’s Investment Committee, can proceed in the lower courts, after they settled a dispute over technicalities.

According to his attorney, Godfrey Smith, SC, Tillett is challenging the Social Security Board’s decision to invest $50 million in the purchase of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) shares, on grounds that it was unlawful, based on apparent bias.

Tillett’s challenge was mounted on the claim that the chairmen of the SSB Board and the SSB Investment Committee were also directors of BTL at the time the investment was approved, and they participated in the vote.

“It is alleged that a fair-minded and well-informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the decisions impugned were not impartially made,” Friday’s Court of Appeal decision documents.

It added that “the respondent [Tillett] seeks declarations that the decision by the Investment Committee of the Social Security Board, made in or around 20 September 2010, to recommend an investment of $50 million in Belize Telemedia Limited through the purchase of shares from the Government of Belize, and the decision of the Social Security Board made on 2 November 2010 to purchase shares in Belize Telemedia from the Government of Belize, are unlawful and void.”

The National Trade Union Congress of Belize, the Belize Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Belize Business Bureau—which did not vote in favor of the transaction—have been named as interested parties in the Supreme Court matter, although we understand that they have not actively participated in the case and were not named in the Court of Appeal ruling.

Dylan Reneau, NTUCB president, told Amandala today that, except for the tumultuous litigation, SSB’s purchase of BTL shares “seemed to have been a prudent investment,” although SSB has not been getting any dividends since the Caribbean Court of Justice “locked up the dividends,” pending the outcome of the dispute with the former shareholders, he added.

The main question on appeal was whether Awich was right in finding that the rules applied at all. Awich held that the respondent had issued a notice compliant with the rules, but Tillett cross-appealed, saying Awich was wrong in finding that the rule for notice even applied to this application.

In the decision handed down by Justices Manuel Sosa, Dennis Mendes and Minnet Hafiz Bertram, the court ruled that the notice provisions do not apply to cases where the applicant seeks to vindicate rights to which the claimant is entitled under public law.

Just as it did in the case of Oceana, which challenged the legality of six offshore contracts, the Government posited to the court that because the notice provisions had not been complied with, the case should be struck out. The Government lost that round of its legal battle with Oceana, just as it did in the case over the SSB’s purchase of BTL shares, as the court has, likewise, affirmed that the rules do not apply.

Smith said that the implications of the Court of Appeal ruling are two-fold: In the broader scheme of things, it helps to settle an old dispute among public law practitioners over whether notice is required to bring public law cases. The court is very clear, said Smith, that anything named public law does not require that notice.

Secondly, said Smith, it means that Tillett’s substantive case against Young, Vasquez and the Social Security Board (SSB), can proceed. He said that they had been waiting for two years to resolve matters.

In the wider scheme of things, the former shareholders of BTL have a case pending before the courts, challenging the validity of the nationalization of the phone company, and we understand that the dispute is now before the Caribbean Court of Justice.

A ruling against the Government could render the dispute in the Tillett case moot.