CCN Cellular case
No to TSTT, yes to foreign cable monopoly
July 15, 2000
By Kim Johnson
Director of Telecommunications, Winston Ragbir, recommended TSTT be denied a cable TV licence because the company had a telephone monopoly, he admitted yesterday in the CCN constitutional motion being heard in the San Fernando High Court.
“You reject the application of TSTT, which belongs to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, because it has the irrelevant telephone monopoly which was soon to be broken, yet there’s a monopoly of cable companies which is foreign?” asked CCN attorney Alvin Fitzpatrick SC.
“The foreign company wasn’t on the licence,” explained Ragbir. “They took the opportunity of a loophole.”
Ragbir denied that the monopoly cable company, Intercomm Holdings (USA), was actually owned by the Gillette group. Later, however, after cross-examining Ragbir, Fitzpatrick quoted Ragbir’s own report that 34 per cent of Gillette’s Open Telecom Ltd was owned by Intercomm Holdings.
Acting for the State, Fenton Ramsahoye SC briefly re-examined Ragbir, the sole State witness.
Ragbir said that he had chaired the Standing Technical Advisory Committee since 1984 to the present. Engineer St Clair King was the only non-governmental member of that committee, and his membership lapsed in 1996.
Ragbir also described the different types of mobile systems the Ministry licensed, including the cellular system, “local loop” technology which integrates rural areas, the trunk radio system used in industry, satellite mobile systems and others.
A late agreement to complete the case before the court goes on vacation in August prompted Fitzpatrick to launch into his summing-up. The CCN attorney cited the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of treatment before a public authority.
He pointed out that the State did not deny that Prime Minister Basdeo Panday had declared CCN to be his enemy, that he excluded the CCN cellular application from further consideration and recommended Gillette’s Open Telecom.
“You can’t carry personal dislikes into public duties,” said Fitzpatrick. “The Constitution entitles you to unbiased consideration.” He noted that by law, Cabinet decided on wireless licences based on informed recommendations from the relevant Minister, who in turn seeks expert advice. But Panday had deliberately dismissed the advice of his Technical Committee.
“Can’t I be fair to my enemy?” presiding judge Sebastian Ventour asked.
“Of course,” said Fitzpatrick. “But they have to demonstrate it, and they haven’t done so at all.”
He pointed out that Ragbir’s affidavit stated the CCN application failed in five areas, but under cross-examination, the Telecommunications Director admitted they had actually complied in two of them.
The two sides disagreed on whether the CCN design covered the entire country—Ragbir saying it didn’t, Fitzpatrick and his expert witnesses saying it did, but couldn’t guarantee the level of coverage in a part of the northern range. “To do so it would be necessary to put down a site, which you can’t do without a licence,” said Fitzpatrick.
Ragbir and Fitzpatrick also disagreed on the need for a letter of intent from a bank. “Mr Ragbir tells us that if the applicant shows he has cash in the bank to cover the cost of the project it’s not enough,” said Fitzpatrick. “That doesn’t make sense. The idea is to show you have the money to go ahead if you get the licence.”
Finally, they disagreed on whether CCN’s list of shareholders sufficiently demonstrated the company was 51 per cent owned by nationals. Fitzpatrick argued that unless nationals meant citizens or corporate citizens, the applicants would have to track down the shareholders in companies that held shares in CCN, and so on down the line, until you had lists of people and proof of their citizenship.
Strongly criticising Ragbir’s refusal to state whether any of the other shortlisted companies had provided such a comprehensive list, Fitzpatrick quoted Justice of Appeal Guya Persad:
“The courts also have a duty not to allow the silence of public officials to be a cloak of injustice and would, in a proper case, draw all necessary inferences in order to ensure that justice is done.”
Hearing continues next Tuesday.
July 13, 2000: Ragbir shows short memory
July 14, 2000: No to TSTT, yes to foreign cable monopoly
July 20, 2000: Cabinet Not PM Decides
Back / Home
|