Opposition senator, Hon. Patrick Faber calls deal “reckless”
BELMOPAN, Mon. Oct. 20, 2025
Nearly five of the six hours and twenty minutes spent in today’s Senate meeting were consumed by debate on the Belize Electricity Investments Bill, 2025. The Leader of Government Business, Senator Hon. Eamon Courtenay, was brief in his introduction and first disclosed that for over a decade, his law firm, Courtenay Coye LLP, has represented Fortis Belize. This revelation promptly saw Lead Opposition Senator, Hon. Patrick Faber accuse Courtenay as well as his law partner, Senator Christopher Coye, of being in a position of conflict of interest. He asked Senate President, Hon. Carolyn Trench-Sandiford to address the concern, and urged both senators to recuse themselves. Instead, Courtenay clarified that no standing order obligated his withdrawal, and that his only duty was to disclose the professional relationship. As regards the buyout, he stated that the transaction has already concluded, and affirmed that he holds no interest in Fortis Belize or BEL.
Faber then shifted his attention to the timing and structure of the Government’s latest venture. He asserted, “When the flag waving fades and we examine the facts, what we see is not vision but political theatre. Not foresight, but financial nostalgia. Not planning, but sentimentality paid for by the Belizean taxpayer.” He shared the view that the purchase of the three dams operated by Fortis Belize was unnecessary, as “we already had the electricity” via long-term power purchase agreements running through to 2050 and 2060. He rejected the Prime Minister’s classification of the funds borrowed to fund the purchase as temporary debt during his address at Friday’s House meeting, and affirmed that there are only “permanent interest payments.” For Faber, the higher domestic debt translates to “less fiscal room for schools, hospitals or hurricane relief.”
Turning to the aging infrastructure, Faber highlighted that Sukhnandan’s evaluator’s report points to the 1995 Mollejon structure requiring a major overhaul within five years, as it “suffers from heat build-up, inadequate ventilation and outdated electrical panels.” Faber similarly outlined concerns about the Chalillo and the Vaca dams. He underscored that the dams are functional now, but will require millions of dollars for “all sorts of upgrades and maintenance work” for “safe, efficient operation.”
In response, People’s United Party senator, Hon. Hector Guerra, affirmed that there is value for money, and that Sukhnandan Consulting, which conducted independent assessments, concluded, “The Mollejon, Chalillo and Vaca dams are well maintained and compliant with dam safety standards. There are no major issues with mechanical or electrical systems and the maintenance is up to date.” He additionally pointed to independent findings that the dams are operated to international and environmental safety standards.
Opposition senator, Hon. Sheena Pitts pointed out that Senator Guerra was not making a distinction between the condition of the dams and their functionality.
PUP senator, Linsford Castillo then pointed to another section of the Sukhnandan report, which states that “with ongoing routine maintenance, planned overhauls and effective environmental management and civil components, [the dams] are expected to have 40 to 60 years of remaining life.” Similarly, he noted that the mechanical system or the turbines are assessed to have 20 to 40 more years of life, and the electrical systems, 15 to 20 years. PUP senator Christopher Coye reiterated that the independent experts concluded that the maintenance of the dams is up to date. Courtenay then pointed to yet another part of Sukhnandan’s assessment that the dams “are in good operational condition with no immediate structural concerns … However, targeted maintenance is required to address minor issues and ensure longevity.”
Faber also deemed the intention to resell the shares to be a reckless plan which is just “speculative trading in the name of patriotism.” He noted that the proposed buyers do not have expertise in running a hydroelectric company. He expressed his preference for keeping the asset as a not-for-profit corporation in the hands of Belizeans “so that you can have people running the show that are not intent on breaking the bank, aren’t intent on getting every last penny off the Belizean taxpayer’s back.”
Business Senator, Hon. Kevin Herrera reminded him of the role the Public Utilities Commission plays to regulate rates and keep prices fair. He also noted that one of the largest consumers of electricity is the business community, which must also remain competitive.
Expressing support for the bill, Herrera called it a financial bridge and a “necessary and strategic move” to bring “these foundational energy assets under local control.” He called on the Belizean people to take advantage of the share offering when the time comes. He highlighted one main difference between a treasury bill, which is for a term normally shorter than a year, and treasury notes, which are for between two and ten years, and carry a higher risk due to that longer period. In general, however, Senator Herrera is of the belief that government debt is a safe investment.
Opposition senator, Sheena Pitts was more circumspect. She questioned, “Which Belizean has disposable income at a time of inflation and high cost of living to take money from salaries when they barely can afford a liveable wage?” She rejected the notion that “this is truly for the average Belizean citizen.” She has asked for the beneficial owners to be disclosed so that the people know who are investing in Hydro Belize Limited.
In his contribution, Senator Herrera underscored the need for vigilance, particularly regarding the risk of political appointments within the staff of the new Hydro Belize Limited. He cautioned that “decisions regarding rates, employment and investment should be purely economic and technical.” In this regard, National Trade Union Congress senator, Hon. Glenfield Dennison said this is now an opportunity for the employees of Hydro Belize to become unionized and stated, “if you see they start politicizing the appointment of employees into your company, call me.”
Raising the concern about climate change impacts on output from the dams, Faber stated, “The NERA valuation itself concedes that without expensive dredging and water rehabilitation, generation could fall by 15% within a 10-year period.” Similar concerns were raised by several other senators, including the Business senator, NTUCB senator and Church senator, Pastor Louis Wade, Jr., who remarked that he had never been in support of dams, as they can only be a clean source of energy at a high cost due to required maintenance. Multiple senators urged the government to move quickly toward the introduction of solar energy. Senator Herrera said the acquisition does nothing to rectify Belize’s dependence on a foreign supplier, and highlighted the need for the government to articulate a clearer, more aggressive policy on the development of new renewable energy. He stated that hydro electricity generation costs twice as much as solar energy generation, the cost of which continues to decrease.
Replying to the climate change concerns, Senator Coye stated, “Even if there were to be a one-third fall-off in the return on investment, you’re still looking at around 9 to 10% return on investment. So there is a lot of cushion there in terms of making an investment of this nature.” He also pointed to the intention of Fortis Belize to add solar capacity to their facilities.
Senator Pitts asked for the Government to disclose how much attorneys were paid in legal fees to finalize the transactions. This was also ignored in the upper chamber, as it had been in the lower chamber. She also raised concern about a confidentiality clause in the agreement. She stated, “The agreements are limited to the strictest of confidentiality, save for those they say that may be necessary for public disclosure.” She commented that this does not breed true transparency.
In winding up the debate, Courtenay called on the people to believe in the experts rather than “Budna supporters.” He said, “It occurred to me that it is only if you love a paedophile and support Budna, and publicly come out and embrace him, that you can rationalize away this project.” Senator Pitts categorically rejected the accusation stating, “It is quite uncharacteristic of Senator Courtenay to go as far in his political posturing to suggest that I or any other senator on this side is in love with any paedophile. The question for me, speaking on it, is ‘who thief Budna?’ That has nothing to do with whether or not he is a paedophile.”
At the conclusion of the debate, the Fortis assets bill was approved. Also approved by the Senate was the Fiscal Incentives (Amendment) (No.2) Act, 2025, which extends the deadline for the formalization of MSMEs to the end of the year. In the case of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management Bill, 2025, due to concerns raised by several senators, the bill was read a second time and passed, on the undertaking from the Leader of Government Business that a committee of the entire Senate, along with the experts, is to be held next week to consider proposals for amendments. According to the Government, the bill is time sensitive and must be passed by November 4th.
The bill is intended to repeal and replace the Coastal Zone Management Act. Senator Courtenay reported that 50 stakeholder meetings were held with 400 participants representing 15 stakeholder groups in 17 coastal communities. Senator Faber, however, noted that some of those same stakeholder groups have expressed concern about the bill being rushed through. Separately, he shared concerns about extensive ministerial oversight, and pointed to an intended advisory council of 17 members being heavily weighted toward government officials, with only two NGO representatives and two private sector representatives. Additionally, he described the fines for major environmental violations as grossly inadequate, and called for an upward revision.
NGO senator Janelle Chanona conceded that, while meetings and presentations were held, “The bottom line is that changes were made, and there was no reporting back to everyone who had been committing time and energy, for more than a year in some cases, to come back and say: ‘these are the changes that were made, this is the rationale, this is how we go forward.’” She added that they will now look like the bad guys for still having further recommendations that they believe should be made. She noted that the Belize Network of NGOs was invited by the Coastal Zone Management Authority on August 29, 2025 to organize a meeting of their membership for the presentation of the bill; that the meeting was set for September 18, and though comments were made by September 30, she said they only received the new draft bill on the day of the House meeting — October 17. She read into the record all the detailed recommendations they would want to see made.
