Gaskin challenges telephone monopoly in court action
Stabroek News
July 28, 2002
A motion to challenge the monopoly of the local phone company has been filed by consumer activist, Ramon Gaskin. The Respondent is the Attorney General and the matter will come up in bail court on the l2th August, 2002. Gaskin is represented by Senior Counsel Ashton Chase and Ralph Ramkarran and junior counsel Mohabir Nandlall.
In the notice of motion filed on Wednesday Gaskin is seeking a declaration from the court that the monopoly rights granted to the Atlantic TeleNetwork (ATN), the parent company of GT&T, on June 18th, 1990 are null and void as they are contrary to section 22 of the Civil Law of Guyana, chapter 6:01. He is also seeking a declaration that the monopoly right, contained in section six of the agreement with ATN, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1990 is contrary to article 146 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides for freedom of expression and is unlawful and of no effect.
A legal challenge to the monopoly had been mounted by INet sometime ago but was dismissed by Justice Winston Moore in January.
Gaskin is also seeking a declaration that section 7(4) which provides for the issue of a monopolistic licence in respect of telecommunication services is unconstitutional and of no effect.
He is also asking for a declaration that the government’s failure, omission/refusal to ensure the provision of telecommunications services in a timely manner and at an affordable cost constitutes an infraction of the right to freedom of expression.
Other declarations sought are:
*that the license granted by the government to GT&T is discriminatory in its effect as it prohibits Guyanese citizens from applying for or obtaining licenses for similar purposes; *that internet services are not tele-communication services and therefore ought not to be subjected to or covered by the license of GT&T and ought not to be subjected to the administration and regulation of the Telecommunications Act of 1990;
*that no person, company or entity, has any right to regulate or otherwise restrict access to the internet or any other source of information or system for the communications and or exchange of ideas and that such regulation or restriction is a breach of Gaskin’s fundamental right of freedom of expression.
*that no person, company, or entity has any right to regulate or otherwise restrict the business purposes to which telephone lines are used, in particular internet service.
Gaskin is seeking damages for breach of his constitutional rights and costs.
In his affidavit, Gaskin states that the telecommunication system run by GT&T is deficient, oppressive and inadequate in that it fails/refuses to effect expansion programmes which ensure that each and every citizen of Guyana who desires to have a telephone service can access and enjoy such service and the rates charged by the company for its services are exorbitant.
He also says that other willing and ready operators are frustrated/prevented from operating another telecommunication system within Guyana and internet service providers are not given an adequate number of telephone lines to provide an efficient, safe and reliable service to their customers.
GT&T, which is not named as a respondent in the motion, has mounted a host of legal challenges to secure the rights granted to it by its 1990 licence and as recently as May sought to have an injunction to prevent Millennium Network and Mathave Boodhoo’s Net Café of Campbelville and Regent Street from providing international voice telephone or transmission services including voice over the internet services or transmission to members of the public or to other persons, corporations or group until the matter is determined.
GT&T claims in its writ that the business of the above named respondents constituted a telecommunications system for which the defendants required the authorization of a licence and the company is seeking damages for unlawful interference with its trade and interfering with its contractual and licence rights. In that matter, Stephen Fraser who appears for the defendants argues that the internet technologies operated by the defendants are not a telecommunications system and are not subject to regulation under the Telecommunications Act.