Government replaced crown counsel with private lawers in the battle over Digicel long distance.Saul Froomkin OBE QC and Venous Memari now represent the Ministries of Environment, Planning and Infrastructure Strategy and Business Development in the legal wrangle. Consultant crown counsel Maurice Cottle had been representing the Ministries.Mr Froomkin appeared on behalf of the two ministries as Digicel argued to have the dispute heard by the Supreme Court, which originally heard the case, before declaring it should properly go before the Telecoms Commission, not the courts.The Commission has yet to rule on whether or not international long distance service (ILD) provided by Digicel and sister company Transact is in compliance with the companies’ licences.Chief Justice Richard Ground yesterday refused Digicel’s application to seek judicial review, on the grounds that “it is premature and that a reference to the Commission is not a reviewable decision”.Mr Ground suggested it may be that the dispute ultimately ends up in Supreme Court: “If that (the Commission’s) decision is adverse to the plaintiffs then would be the time to seek redress either by way of Judicial Review or by the statutory appeals process as may be appropriate in view of all the circumstances at that time.”Digicel CEO Wayne Caines said yesterday he was “disappointed” with Mr Ground’s decision.“It is very important to note that Digicel had no issue with the members of the Telecoms Commission or how the Commission generally managed the enquiry that was referred to it by the Minister prior to Christmas,” Mr Caines said.He went on: “The primary reason why Digicel was back in court (yesterday) morning seeking to have the stay lifted was the manner in which lawyers for the Government sought to intervene in the hearings of the Telecoms Commission.“Given that the Minister himself referred the matter to the Commission; Digicel felt that the Minister should not intervene in that process through his lawyers and his officials and essentially direct the Commission in terms of the what the result of their inquiry ought to be.“Digicel felt that this involvement by lawyers for the Government rid the Telecoms Commission process of its independence. It must be remembered that the Commission has to report to the Minister. As such, why should the Minister tell them what he feels the result should be? This is why we felt the matter needed to be ruled upon definitively by the Supreme Court. We are quite disappointed that the Court did not wish to hear the case.”In a further twist in the dispute, the Minister apparently withdrew direction given to the Commission earlier this month in which Government sought to expand the terms of reference of the Commission.It is understood the Minister confirmed to the Commission that he had directed them to expand the terms of reference based on an apparent “false premise”.Apparently the Ministry was led to believe Digicel’s lawyers had complained about the scope of reference, when they had not. In addition costs to all parties have become a concern, and the Minister said he was satisfied the matter could be properly dealt with under the original terms of reference.It is Digicel’s position that it told Government what it wanted to do with ILD and received consent from Government to proceed on that basis.Digicel originally went to court to get CellOne to provide interconnection for the new long distance service.Government then was joined with long distance provider TBI in objecting to Digicel’s launch of ILD.