“It’s about the underlying principle, …upholding economic interest”

After months of legal back-and-forth, the court has sided with BSI and BELCOGEN, confirming that the blockade at the mill wasn’t just disruptive, it was unlawful and costly. The companies proved they lost money, missed contracts, halted production, and even lost energy sales to the national grid. But as Hector Guerra explained, this case was never just about dollars and cents. It was about principle, about protecting economic interests and demanding mutual respect in how we resolve disputes. Here’s more from that judgment.

 

Hector Guerra, Attorney-at-law

“The fourth element which we were able to successfully show in court was that BSI and BELCOGEN, as a result of the blockade, suffered monetary losses, in terms of contracts to deliver sugarcane products, in terms of the ability to manufacture sugarcane products, and  in terms of the ability to sell, for BELCOGEN, energy to the grid in Belize.”

 

Reporter

“And the court agreed with you all.”

 

Hector Guerra

“Yes. So this is a fair and balanced judgement, but the underlying essence of the judgment is that the court found that the BSCFA and two other farmers were liable because they intentionally and unlawfully blocked the entrance to BSI’s mill. This was never about a monetary sum. It’s not about the figure, it’s about the underlying principle, it’s about upholding economic interest and ensuring that parties engage with respect for each other.”