STATEMENT ON THE UNCONSTITUIONALITY OF THE SUGAR INDUSTRY ACTON BEHALF OF LUCILO TECK
It is with very deep regret that we must make a correction to the false statements made by two legal minds of this country, but which if not clarified would lead to an injustice and intimidation of cane farmers.
It seems intentional today that the Prime Minister, Hon. Dean O. Barrow tried to make it appear as if though there is a court decisions that declares the Sugar Industry Act No. 27 of 2003 unconstitutional in parts and to the extent that it will affect the case of Lucilo Teck v Sugar Industry Control Board and BSI claim no 739 of 2014. This is far from the truth, thus see the copy of the Consent Court Order of the case of Magana et’al v AG of Belize, BSI et’al 2010, a case which was not heard to completion and for which there is no judgment given by a judge, but rather the parties entered into a consent order because the parties agreed to settle the matter without full trial. [ see copy of the Consent order and intended undertaking and copy of Sugar Act 2003].
Sadly, as has become usual with this Government administration, Court Orders are not obeyed. This order included an undertaking by the Government which reads as follows: “That the Attorney Generals undertakes that the amendments subject of the undertakings will be passed by the National Assembly on or before the 21st August, 2010 that upon the carrying out of the Undertakings, the Claimants shall discontinue the Claim.” To date the Government has failed to keep its word and so because there is no decision and judgment of the Court such repeal of sections of the Act are not effective. Rather, the Claim that was brought is still very much alive against the government, until it obeys its own consent order.
Thus, because the Government has failed to go to Parliament to pass the promised amendments the entire Act as it stands remain valid and said sections are not repealed. Mr. Hubert Elrington, who was the attorney of the Applicant in this Claim, sadly, has not followed up the enforcement of his client’s consent order, yet misinforms the public that the Sugar Act 2003 is repealed. This is far from the truth and if and when Government finally takes the matter to Parliament, the sections that will be affected are 2, 17, 18, 19, 38 and 53, none of which impinges on Section 6 of the Act which forms the basis of the application for a Writ of Mandamus.
It must also be cleared up that the case for the mandamus is being brought by Lucilo Teck as a cane farmer, and not the Association, however, by resolution the General Assembly of the BSCFA resolved for the BSCFA should join in this matter.
Of interest it must be noted that if indeed the Prime Minister, believes that the BSCFA is unconstitutional, then how is it possible for no other than the Prime Minister to be meeting with an unconstitutional entity and wanting such unconstitutional entity to enter into a commercial agreement with BSI, which is part owned by the Government of Belize? Why would the PM entertain meetings with such unconstitutional entity and how would he expect such unconstitutional entity to enter into a valid commercial agreement?
To deny farmers the right to belong to the BSCFA, and to use it might to destroy the BSCFA, would then be considered unconstitutional conduct by the Government of Belize.