Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
INFOCAHANNEL Ltd., one of the island's leading Internet service providers, is seeking to make telecommunications giant Cable & Wireless a respondent in the constitutional motion it has brought against the Government for US$27 million in compensation.
If the court makes Cable and Wireless a respondent, InfoChannel will be seeking to get redress including monetary compensation against it.
Hilary Phillips, Q.C., is opposing the application and the hearing has been put off to September 9.
The Constitutional Court began hearing submissions this month in the motion in which InfoChannel Ltd. is contending that Phillip Paulwell, Minister of Commerce and Technology, and the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR), breached its constitutional rights.
InfoChannel is challenging the Telecommunications Act 2000 and is asking the court to find that it is unfair for the Government to provide Cable and Wireless Jamaica Ltd. with a monopoly over the technology to facilitate voice-over-Internet protocol.
It is contending that the minister breached its right under section 22 of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. It is claiming that its right was breached when the minister refused to grant a licence for InfoChannel to operate VSAT communications systems.
Stanley Douglas Beckford, one of InfoChannel's customers who is being represented by attorneys Pamela Benka Coker, Q.C. and Frank Williams, is also an applicant in the motion. He is contending that he was accustomed to use voice-over-Internet service through InfoChannel. He is contending that when InfoChannel could not use VSAT to provide that service, he was deprived of that service, resulting in higher communication costs in his business and personal life. Beckford is president of the Jamaica Squash Association.
Cable and Wireless which is an intervener in the motion is opposing InfoChannel's application to seeking compensation against it. Cable and Wireless had applied to be made an intervener in the motion.
InfoChannel is asking the court to find that the refusal to grant the licence prevented the company from providing several services including voice-over-Internet protocol. It claims that the combined effects of the Telecommunic-ations Act and the actions of the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR) and the minister had resulted in the compulsory acquisition of its proprietary rights in respect of its contracts with its subscribers.
InfoChannel is contending that the minister has by the agreement made with Cable and Wireless, ceased to be an impartial arbiter in the determination of the relevant issues affecting InfoChannel's civil rights and obligations. It is arguing also that it has been deprived of its right to protection of law or due process in that both the OUR and the minister have approached its application for a service provider licence on the basis that it has no right to contend that Cable and Wireless has no exclusivity or legitimate claim to prevent InfoChannel's voice-over-Internet services. It is accusing them of failing to give it an independent and impartial hearing.
InfoChannel is seeking damages of US$100,000 monthly for contravention of its constitutional rights.
The hearing is to continue on September 9 before the Constitutional Court comprising Justice Basil Reid, Justice Karl Harrison and Justice Norma McIntosh.
Dr. Lloyd Barnett is making submissions on behalf of InfoChannel.
Patrick Terrelonge, managing director of InfoChannel, has submitted an affidavit, alleging several breaches.
