Yesterday, we showed you how Justice Lisa Shoman has decided to extend an injunction against the Christian Workers Union. They are restrained from disbursing any more of the money that makes up that 1.5-million-dollar ex gratia payment that was made by the Briceno Government to the stevedores
That's because their employer, the management of the Port of Belize Limited, has brought a supreme court case to challenge the method by which those funds were paid out of the government purse.
This case will most likely re-examine that well-established practice by government administrations from the two mass parties where they spend public funds and then, they go to the National Assembly after the fact to get the approval.
One attorney who knows all about the pitfalls of that type of governance is Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck. He sought to convince Acting Chief Justice Michelle Arana to settle a dispute over perfected orders that her predecessor, Former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin, granted to the claimants, Prime Minister John Briceno and Minister Julius Espat. Back when they were in Opposition, they labored very hard to get a judgment from the retired judge that Former Prime Minister Dean Barrow unlawfully spent 1.3 billion dollars in public funds when his government didn't get the House's approval first. They sought to do this instead with the use of Supplementary appropriations.
He granted an injunction against the then government to stop that kind of practice, but he delayed its enforcement so that the government can rectify the situation by proposing the requisite amendment to the constitution to address the declaration against them. Well, the claimants asserted that instead of doing that, the then Barrow government simply kept passing supplementary appropriations. By that time, Benjamin had already retired as a Supreme Court judge, and so, they went to his successor to oblige the government to comply with the judgment and discontinue their supplementary bills.
That was in 2020, and now, in March 2022, long after the intervention was needed, the judge has returned with an unfavorable decision. Earlier in the week, attorney Andrew Marshalleck spoke with 7News, and he outlined several complaints he has with the judgment and its relevance:
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney For the Claimant/Applicants
"It's unfortunate, to say the least. It's a travesty and a black eye on the administration of justice and rule of law in this country. The first thing that was wrong with it - and you can't miss it - is that it took some 20 months for the judge to deliver it. That application was made at the beginning of July 2020, and we get a decision in March 2022. But more than that, the application, the nature of it was to lift a stay on a permanent injunction granted by the Chief Justice. The stay was scheduled to expire by July 31. So, what's the point of considering an application to lift a stay when the stay is expired by close to 2 years. So, that's the first thing. I also want to point out that had the present constitutional amendment tabled in the House, for governing delays by judges been passed, this type of delay is the type that would have constituted misconduct, and warranted disciplinary proceedings against the judge. I say that as a background. I say that the decision is a travesty and a black eye for the rule of law and the administration of justice because at its core, the decline to settle and order of the court, from the records of the court itself. Judges always spend hours and hours writing every last thing that's said in court. The stenography is there, taking a record, word for word, of every last word spoken in the proceedings, and there are also audio recordings of it. The claimants in this claim, prosecuted the claim in accordance with orders of the court, Supreme Courts of Belize, tried the case, and the judge - who was the chief justice at the time - reserved a decision. He then sent out a notice that the decision would be given, and on that day, he delivered a decision. He read something in court, took considerable time, and every word spoken by him was recorded. And there is a 38-page transcript of it. I've shared this with you. When you look at the transcript, there can be no doubt - no doubt - that there was a judgment."
The Acting Chief Justice has ruled that she can't settle this dispute using only the court's transcripts.
She referred to the application from the claimants as "wholly misconceived", she said, quote, "The Claimants now seek to only use the "Record", incomplete at that, to purport to come to some conclusion as to what the then Chief Justice intended to do and have the Acting Chief Justice grant a permanent injunction against the Defendants." End quote
Since, the Acting Chief Justice reviewed the facts and the law on this matter, and refused to grant the claimants their application, our newsroom took the view that the 2020 judgment technically doesn't exist, since its validity has been called into question. Marshalleck strongly disagreed with that conclusion. So, in our interview, we challenged him on whether or not the court's transcript can stand alone as the judgment, and if is adequate enough to resolve this legal fight. Here's that back and forth:
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney For the Claimant/Applicants
"It is, for me, in my view, unfortunate that the judge took the position that because the terms of the order were not fully settled before the chief justice demitted office, that no order could be settled from the records of the court itself so that the entire effort before the chief justice was for naught. That is an indictment on the court system, and its utility in modern-day society, to resolve important disputes facing society. This dispute as to spending and whether the proper procedures are being followed continues to plague us even today."
Daniel Ortiz
"I see you, and I hear your arguments about the existence of a full record and transcript. But, should our viewers on Ch 7 not see this interview, after I transcribe it, and prepare it for my news director's perusal, our interview here does not become a story."
E. Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"I can answer that simply. In an ordinary case, with no political repercussions, the order would have been settled from the records of the court. It's done all the time. It's done in relation to several other cases that Chief Justice Benjamin left in the same state. There seems to be a sensitivity to it in this particular case, but the records are there. The records are there. And they, should not be ignored. They cannot be properly ignored. So, we think it's unfortunate what transpired, and we must, of course, respect the decision. It is what it is. We, of course, strongly disagree with it for the reasons I've outlined. There is, of course, the possibility of appeal, which of course, we will urge. But that decision is up to the parties as well."
An important element of this ongoing issue is the finger-pointing at unpaid bills left behind by successive PUDP governments.
