Today the Supreme Court heard the matter of Alberto Vellos versus the Government of Belize. If the name doesn’t ring a bell, Vellos is the former editor of the The Belize Times and a ranking PUP who – along with a group of other Opposition sympathizers – challenged the government’s decision to amend the Referendum Act. They argue that the Prime Minister has set out to amend fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the constitution – and by the law in the Referendum Act, he first has to get citizens approval by holding a referendum to do that. But the clause in the Referendum Act has been repealed and there’s an amended Referendum Act that’s been passed by the House and Senate. But it cannot be passed into law because the Chief Justice ordered an injunction against the Attorney General, restraining him from getting the Governor General’s assent which would make it law.
The case went to court today with Lisa Shoman and Anthony Sylvester appearing for Vellos and his group, and Lois Young Barrow and Priscilla Banner appearing for the Government of Belize. Arguments started at around 11 this morning and up until 6 this evening, they were still going. Since the court cannot presume upon the powers of parliament, the Prime Minister has been named as a defendant. He told us why he thinks that the Opposition attorneys are using a backdoor to try and handcuff parliament.
Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
“While the claimants say that they are seeking judicial review against me in my executive capacity and that that they are not trying to restrain Parliament, that is exactly what they are doing. They are upset that Parliament is passing the amendment to the Referendum Act and so they went to court and got the injunction on the basis that they need to bring judicial review against the Prime Minister acting in his executive capacity. But in effect it is a cover for their dissatisfaction with what parliament is doing and it is a roundabout way of restraining parliament.”
Jules Vasquez,
The public relations spin from their side is that the government is trying to take away citizens’ rights to a referendum when certain constitutionally conferred rights are being abrogated, that the government is trying to steal that from the citizenry.
Hon. Dean Barrow,
“But there is no such right and I keep pointing out that they are such frauds and hypocrites because when the Referendum Act was amended by them to include this so called right, which is not a right, they had a majority of 26 to 3 so they could have amended the constitution to put this into the constitution which would then have made it in fact a right.”
Jules Vasquez,
Are you then disposed to enshrine it in the constitution?
Hon. Dean Barrow,
“That is something we can talk about. They can make their representations and if the other members of the community, if the citizenry at large via those that are vocal, those that are activists wish to raise that matter, I am certainly disposed to listen, to discuss, and to talk about it.”
Arguments finished at 6 and the Chief Justice has reserved judgement.
