BTL deal blasted as secretive monopoly risk, Panton warns

Opposition Leader Hon. Tracy Panton on Tuesday condemned the Government’s handling of the proposed BTL transaction, arguing it risks restoring telecom consolidation under secrecy while positioning the state as buyer, regulator, and beneficiary without public disclosure.

Panton, speaking at a United Democratic Party press conference, framed the proposed BTL transaction—widely discussed as involving SMART/Speednet—as a governance issue, not simply a commercial matter. She argued that any major change affecting BTL must trigger public oversight because BTL is constitutionally defined as a “public institution” under provisions inserted by the Eighth Amendment Bill of 2021.

She told reporters that the central danger is not only what the deal may contain, but how it is being pursued—without transparency, and with unclear financing and accountability. In her view, the Government’s posture creates an unacceptable concentration of power in a democratic system: the same state that influences regulation through appointments would also be directly shaping the market and benefiting from the transaction.

Panton cited Belize’s historical experience with monopoly control in telecoms as the political context that fuels today’s distrust. She argued that for decades Belizeans endured private monopoly dominance marked by high costs, suppressed competition, and restricted access, and that the country spent years in legal battles and reforms to unwind the damage and restore competition. She said that legacy makes Belizeans “instinctively skeptical” of arrangements that return the sector to consolidation—especially if pursued with little consultation or disclosure.

She also anchored her criticism in the Public Utilities Commission framework, noting that while certain utilities have historically been treated as monopolies for practical reasons, the public-utilities regulatory regime includes safeguards against anti-competitive outcomes. She argued the proposed transaction raises unavoidable questions about whether regulators can meaningfully enforce commitments after competition is eliminated.

In outlining the UDP’s objections, Panton identified a series of public-interest risks that she said must be answered before any transaction proceeds. These include consumer protection on prices and service quality, labor impacts and possible rationalization or job loss, and whether public or quasi-public funds would finance the acquisition directly or indirectly. She also questioned who ultimately protects the public once competition disappears and enforcement becomes largely regulatory rather than market-driven.

Panton announced what she described as the UDP’s “non-negotiable” requirements, including immediate public disclosure of independent assessments used to justify the transaction; transparency on financing sources and public exposure; parliamentary debate before further steps; binding consumer protections; binding worker protections; and a strengthened merger-control and competition framework. She further called for reform to the PUC appointment structure, including at minimum the inclusion of opposition representation on the commission.

During the question-and-answer segment, Panton drew a sharp distinction between SMART’s historical sale of shares to Waterloo—describing it as a commercial transaction—and the current matter involving BTL, which she again emphasized is a public institution and must therefore be treated with heightened seriousness and scrutiny.