Last night, we told you about the virtual court hearing before Justice Lisa Shoman over the 1.5 million dollars that the Christian Workers Union received from the Briceno Administration on behalf of the stevedores.
As we told you, the management of the Port of Belize, the employers of the stevedores, are attempting to block their access to that money. They are attempting to convince Justice Shoman to grant an injunction against the use of that money on the grounds that the government didn't get prior parliamentary approval to transfer it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
But, as we told you, the stevedores, who have decision-making influence over their union, urged their leaders to hand over their share of that ex gratia payment before any attempts could be made to block it. To prevent any further activity on that money, Justice Shoman has granted an interim injunction to restrain the CWU, its leadership, and its agents from making any further disbursals.
The claimants complained bitterly to the court that the union's weekend activities to pay out some of that money - before any injunction was in place to stop them - was "disrespect to the court process".
So, since the union was willing to grant a press briefing this afternoon, we asked the CWU leadership and the union's attorneys to respond to that.
We start first though, with President "Mose" Hyde's comments on the difficult environment that the interim injunction is causing them with funds that are not in any way connected to that 1.5 mil. Here's what he had to say:
Evan "Mose" Hyde - President, CWU
"As a body, our guidance was that those disbursements should be done in a way that our members would be able to access it. Obviously, what has happened is that that access has been interrupted in multiple instances. It has been made complicated. What should have been a day where a process that was completely upfront, an agreement that was completely publicized - put out there -became what it became. From the standpoint that in-- we had to appreciate the fact that the employer of our members, based on our understanding, also has interests in banking and a great number for members - unfortunately, if you ask me - have accounts tied into the banking interests of their employer, and we could not give guidance, that based on how the employer was acting, and their representatives on their behalf, this extraordinary pornographic effort to take away the very little, when they have so much, our guidance was that it doesn't make any sense to do transfers into your accounts. And that has created multiple complications. I believe that our members have - unfortunately, to get their checks cashed - essentially have had to pay exorbitant fees to various agencies that do that. In our view, the whole aspect- and I have to say this. It might not show on Channel five, but our advice to our members today is that they need to move their accounts from those institutions that are related to the employer, forthwith. We are being treated, right now, like some kind of financial pariah. So overall, I'm saying to you what is emerging is banks are very uncomfortable dealing with us."
We also asked the attorney about whether or not there are legal consequences to those pre-injunction payouts from Sunday and Monday, before the judge's order. Here's that back and forth:
Darrell Bradley - Attorney for the CWU
"What I think is disrespectful is the fact that this was all done in public. The fact of negotiations between The CW, the government of Belize, and the Port Authority began in January of this year. If you look at - and I challenge every member of the media to look at the affidavits filed by the claimants - it tracks the fact that they knew that these negotiations were happening from January. The payment service. The memorandum was signed on the third of February 2022 at the conclusion of those negotiations. Now, when you use the court processes for urgency, that is because something is happening, when you had no opportunity to act. When you are saying that something is urgent, you are seeing that people are trying to do something behind closed doors. But, that is furthest from the truth. These things were public. These things were done with press conferences and in the plain view of every single member of the public. And on Friday, I did not even know that there was going to be a hearing because we weren't sure about the document. We received an advance notice or an advance copy of the document on Saturday for the hearing that would have happened on Monday. And you would have heard because I know members of the media would have been in in the hearing, that there were comments in relation to the lateness of the affidavit. The only reason that was the case is that we received the documents involving our clients, seeking this injunction on Saturday. We had to be struggling to put in place what would be your response and so forth for a hearing that would have been on Monday."
Daniel Ortiz
"The judge did point out to you, though, that there was a hearing on Friday. She asked you for an undertaking from your clients. What are your views on that in the context of The CWU and the stevedores having foreknowledge that this is an issue that would be coming, that the court has certain jurisdictions?"
Darrell Bradley
"Okay, fair enough, but I want to analyze it like this. If you ask me for an undertaking, which is that you're asking me to voluntarily - and I want to emphasize that word. You're asking me to voluntarily dismiss with a course of action. And I tell you, after having consulted with clients, that we will not give the undertaking, what does that indicate? That we will continue with the course of actions which have been underlined. This view, this the statement that somehow, because you have knowledge of something you are supposed to stop that is not law. Law is that you follow court orders, you follow court judgments."
The injunction application case continues on Wednesday, March 16. We'll keep following the story and update you accordingly.
