Last night, we gave you a deep dive into the Andre Vega misadventure.
Vega, son of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Gaspar Vega, has won a major appeal. His attorney convinced the Court of Appeal to set aside a judgment from the Supreme Court. That 2019 judgment from the Supreme Court said that he must pay back 400 thousand dollars to the government and the people of Belize.
But, the Appeal Court has ruled that Andre Vega cannot be held accountable for what happened. They say, quote, "Where the court below fell into error was... in absolving the GOB from blame for the consequences of its wrong... and in transferring the blame for the consequences of that wrong to the Defendant, VEGA, instead of laying it squarely at the feet of the GOB where it truly belonged..." End quote.
We got a chance to speak this evening with Attorney General Magali Marin-Young, and she told us that after reviewing the case, she is forming the view, that it was set up, from the onset, to fail. Here's how she explained why:
Magali Marin-Young - Attorney General
"The prime minister is certainly concerned about the outcome and has asked my office to look at all possible angles. What is outrageous about this case is the way it was handled from the get-go, all the way through to trial. And it, certainly from my perspective, you know, I have a lot of question marks in my mind. [The] first question, when I peruse the file was, why wasn't the former minister of lands joined as a defendant? Why did not the AG at the time, Miss Vanessa Retreage, not instruct that he'd be joined, if she felt at the time that there was sufficient evidence to allege on the pleadings that were filed back in 2016 that there was collusion? Why wasn't he joined? Was she constrained? Was she instructed not to? That raises a big question. It was a question mark that loomed large in Justice of Appeal, Minot- Phillips' mind. She says scrutiny of the reliefs claim by the government shows remarkably that it seeks to hold Andrew Vega accountable for what it describes as a deliberate breach by the Minister of Natural Resources, of his duty owed to the state and people of Belize. So clearly, the Justice of Appeal was disturbed that the claim, as it was framed, was seeking relief against Andre Vega and Mr. Hilmar Alamilla. And, it was basically visiting a breach, as she put it, as was averred in the pleadings by the Minister of State. So, the question evidently follows why wasn't the former minister joined?"
Apart from not including Gaspar Vega, as a litigant in this lawsuit, the Attorney General is concerned that Hilmar Alamilla was removed as one of the parties. Here's how she explained those matters to us:
Magali Marin-Young - Attorney General
"You reported in one of your news items that the court struck out the claim against the second defendant, Mr. Hilmar Alamilla. But when you read Justice Abel's decision, it doesn't appear that it was a court decision that they might be struck out against Hilmar Alamilla. So, when you look at Justice Abel's decision, and you look at paragraph 41, he says that Chambers, by consent, or without objection of the government, Hilmar Alamilla was removed as a party to the proceedings, and then there was an order for the government to pay Mr. Alamilla costs in a sum of $750. Then, he goes on, in paragraph 42, to say that the order, where Mr. Humor Alamilla, was removed, the order was filed, but failed to note [that] the order was by consent. So, the claim was weakened. One, the former minister was not joined. Two, it appears that the then AG instructed, that by consent, the claim against Hilmar Alamilla be withdrawn. But, more disturbingly, I wish to draw your attention to paragraph 43 of Justice Courtney Abel's written decision. Mr. Andre Vega brought a counterclaim against the government to have the court declare that he had a binding September 2015 settlement agreement. And so, he made a counterclaim. Disturbingly, in paragraph 43 of the judgment, no defense to counterclaim was filed. So basically, the government did not put up a fight to say that there was not a binding agreement. And by not - it's rather outrageous. You're bringing this claim, and you chose not to defend this counterclaim. [It] begs the question why? Why did the former AG not instruct that a defense be filed in relation to this particular counterclaim, in the same suit? So, when you look at the way this matter was handled by the former AG, it begs the question. It really begs the question of why these decisions were made. And Was it designed for this claim to be bound to fail? That, you know, we are looking at all possible angles, and these questions certainly arise."
The AG tells us that the Cabinet is looking very closely at the matter with grave concern, and they are exploring options on how to address it.
This evening, we spoke with former Attorney General Michael Peyrefitte, and he insisted that this case had begun long before he was appointed. So, he made the decision to take a hands-off approach, and allow the lawyers to handle the matter without his influence.
