By: Omar Silva

Editor: National Perspective Bz DIGITAL 2024

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City: Wednesday 25th September 2024

The Belizean government’s recent move to compulsorily acquire 23.4 acres of land on Stake Bank Island, a decision that is tightly wrapped in legal jargon and political manoeuvring, has raised significant questions about the true beneficiaries of this deal. While the government claims this acquisition is for a “public purpose,” deeper scrutiny reveals a murky web of private interests, questionable legal arrangements, and potential financial risks that could ultimately fall on the Belizean people.

At the centre of this controversy is developer Michael Feinstein, who had grand plans to turn the land into a cruise port terminal. But now, he is at odds with the government and a foreign entity, OPSA, which stands to take ownership of the land once the acquisition is complete. Feinstein, embroiled in a legal battle with OPSA over alleged land fraud, has demanded compensation from the government to the tune of US$50 million and additional long-term benefits such as a perpetual US$1.50 per cruise passenger head tax. This raises the critical question: Is the Belizean government truly acquiring this land for the public, or are we simply pawns in a private game with millions of dollars at stake?

The Indemnity Mirage: Is Belize Really Protected?

In a recent Cabinet discussion, the Belizean government insisted that it is shielded from financial risk through an indemnity arrangement with OPSA. The government’s message to the public is simple: “Don’t worry, if compensation is owed to Feinstein, OPSA will cover it.” But can we trust this assurance?

The problem is that OPSA, the Honduran company set to acquire Stake Bank, is far from financially stable. Reports indicate that OPSA is already burdened with a staggering US$270 million in debt. So, the question that no one in government seems eager to answer is: What happens if OPSA cannot meet its indemnity obligations?

Minister of Home Affairs, Kareem Musa, acknowledged that “an airtight indemnity is only as good as those who indemnify it.” But how can the Belizean public trust an indemnity backed by a company in such financial distress? While the Attorney General’s office claims to have meticulously reviewed the deal, Belizeans deserve more transparency about OPSA’s assets, and whether those assets are sufficient to cover potential compensation should Feinstein win his case.

Who Really Benefits?

At the heart of this issue is the question of public versus private interest. The Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Act allows the government to compulsorily acquire land for the benefit of the public. But here, the land will be vested in the hands of OPSA—a foreign entity. How does this align with the spirit of public purpose?

Prime Minister John Briceño has argued that the acquisition is urgent, citing declining cruise tourism revenue and the deteriorating state of the island. However, critics, including the National Trade Union Congress of Belize (NTUCB), have challenged this rationale, arguing that the acquisition seems to primarily benefit private interests rather than the broader Belizean population. The NTUCB has sent a five-page letter to the government, questioning the validity of the acquisition and urging the government to explore alternative solutions.

Moreover, Feinstein’s demands, including the US$50 million price tag and long-term financial benefits like the head tax, suggest that this is no ordinary land deal. It’s a high-stakes financial arrangement that could saddle Belize with enormous liabilities, especially if OPSA’s indemnity proves worthless.

The Stakes for Belize: Public Accountability or Private Gain?

Belizeans must ask themselves: Are we being caught in a state-controlled game of wheeling and dealing that puts private gain above public accountability? The government has failed to provide clear answers on how this acquisition benefits the public. Instead, we are left with more questions than answers:

Why is the government willing to risk Belizean taxpayers’ money on an indemnity arrangement with a financially unstable company?

What safeguards are in place if OPSA defaults on its obligations?

Who will truly benefit from the land acquisition—Belizeans or private, foreign entities?

Why hasn’t the government been more transparent about the details of this deal, especially regarding Feinstein’s compensation and OPSA’s financial standing?

The government’s claim of acting in the public’s interest appears tenuous at best. Belizeans must demand answers, and they must demand them now. October 8th is the deadline for the second and final publication of the declaration of acquisition. If the government proceeds without addressing these concerns, it risks not only financial peril but also a breach of trust with the people it claims to serve.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

This is not just a matter of land acquisition; it is a matter of public trust and national interest. Belizeans must hold their government accountable and demand transparency in every aspect of this deal. The compulsory acquisition of land is a powerful tool, but it must be wielded with the utmost integrity and transparency, ensuring that it truly serves the public good—not private or foreign interests.

The NTUCB’s objections have sparked an important dialogue, but it’s up to the Belizean people to keep the pressure on. We must demand clear, unequivocal answers from the government about who stands to gain from this acquisition and what risks the public will face if the indemnity fails.

In the end, Belize’s land is our land. If the government is allowed to play fast and loose with its acquisition powers, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. The Belizean people cannot afford to let this issue slip into obscurity. Now is the time to demand accountability, transparency, and above all, a government that puts the public first.