You may not remember the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution Bill – that’s the Government’s reform package which was tabled in the House of Representative 10 months ago in May of 2008. Tabled alongside the package was an amendment to the Referendum Act – which eliminated the requirement for a referendum before such amendments are passed.
A group of citizens – all opposition supporters - challenged the Bill saying that government was obligated to hold a referendum before passing some of those amendments because they alter the fundamental rights granted to citizens under the constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with them in July, but the government didn’t, so it took the case to the Court of Appeal. Arguments were heard in October but it is a weighty matter, so the Court reserved its decision until a later date.
That date was today and the sense of drama was high at the Court, as the Government had the chance of being shown up and its reform ambitions sharply up-ended. And that’s just what happened, as the Appeals Court Justices found that yes, the government does need to hold a referendum before it alters citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. Janelle Chanona was at court where winning Attorneys Lisa Shoman and Anthony Sylvester were overjoyed.
Anthony Sylvestre, Citizens’ Group Attorney
“It’s a good day for justice and the justice system.”
That was the elated reaction of Attorney Anthony Sylvestre this morning after the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the learned Chief Justice that a referendum should be held before the list of changes to the constitution proposed by the Barrow administration can become law.
Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Citizen’s Group
“We were very comfortable that it would be. We thought that not only the arguments we made were powerful arguments but in fact that the CJ’s decision was very well reasoned. The President of the court has indicated that he has a slightly different view of the timing of when the referendum case should have been brought and when that legislation should have been challenged which of course we will look very carefully at. But the point is here is that the Chief Justice’s decision has been affirmed and as far as we are concerned, this is a great victory for the people of Belize, for the citizens of Belize.”
Janelle Chanona,
As far as tangible results, what happens now? Do we expect a referendum six months, a year?
Lisa Shoman,
“Well we will expect that in terms of the sections that were affected, having to do specifically with land rights which would be one and having to do with any other fundamental right and freedom which was affected by the sixth constitutional amendment bill that those would have to be looked at again and decisions will need to be made as to whether
the government will withdraw those sections or whether it will put it to a referendum for the citizens of Belize to decide whether they wish those changes to be made.”
Lois Young, Attorney for Government
“I think they said that a referendum should have been held before the bill was introduced, I am not sure. I have to read it as I said before and consult so I am not trying to push you off. I just don’t know what to say and it is difficult, the courtroom was crowded. I need to read it. I’ve been waiting for it. I am anxious to read it.”
Lisa Shoman,
“Clearly what the citizens of Belize should be thinking about is finding a way to insist that the government put back that safeguard into the legislation of Belize i.e., safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms with a referendum. We need it.”
Lois Young,
“We have appealed the land owners case involving Barry Bowen already. It has been appealed and so I don’t think it depended on the outcome of this, whether or not we appeal. Obviously not because we have appealed.”
Janelle Chanona,
But wouldn’t the fact that they say a referendum should be held, would that not cover that land owners issue since the entire package of proposals would have to be put to referendum?
Lois Young,
“Well not really. The Barry Bowen issue I think is a separate issue and hmmm, you might have a point there. I have to go and study it. Sorry I can’t be more helpful Janelle.”
The Government has also been ordered to pay the costs for the attorneys of the citizen’s group. From Court of Appeal, I am Janelle Chanona.
And while Senior Counsel Lois Young isn’t quite clear on what happens next, frankly, neither are we. We simply know that from a political perspective, government’s reform agenda which is bundled into the sixth Amendment to the constitution package is put on hold – so all that talk about an empowered senate, is still beyond the horizon. It is not known is the Government will choose to take its appeal all the way to the Privy Council in London.
