BELIZE CITY – In a striking divergence from his party’s stance, Infrastructure Development and Housing Minister Julius Espat has forcefully advocated for comprehensive national consultations regarding Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL), asserting that Belizeans constitute the genuine owners of the telecommunications giant despite its corporate structure.
Espat challenged the prevailing argument that BTL’s status as a privately operated entity negates the necessity for public consultation, emphasizing that majority government ownership inherently makes Belizeans stakeholders deserving of meaningful input. The minister articulated his position during a recent press engagement, highlighting fundamental concerns about monopoly control and consumer protection.
‘Consultation is never sufficient in these matters,’ Espat stated. ‘There exists a significant misconception that privately-publicly owned companies are exempt from consulting the Belizean people. This perspective is fundamentally flawed – either we own this enterprise or we do not. Since we indeed own it, management must seek our perspectives before making consequential decisions.’
The minister revealed that Cabinet’s reluctance to establish a definitive position stemmed from awaiting completion of comprehensive consultations, including media input. He specifically noted concerns about how monopoly control could adversely affect media organizations and broader consumer interests.
Espat further elaborated on competition principles: ‘From my earliest understanding, I have believed in competitive markets. The very existence of multiple telecommunications companies exemplifies this principle. While any commercial entity naturally desires monopoly control – whether Channel 7, Channel 5, or Plus TV – such arrangements rarely serve consumer interests optimally.’
Regarding Prime Minister John Briceño’s potential conflict of interest concerning BTL matters, Espat confirmed the Cabinet collectively determined recusal was unnecessary despite the Premier’s offer to step aside during deliberations. ‘It was a Cabinet decision,’ Espat noted, ‘and I respect all perspectives presented, though the majority concluded recusal was not required.’









