I am aware of a law (or laws) in our country that keeps public comment on judges and legal matters in check — “libel laws” we most likely inherited from the British. It isn’t common for Belizean leaders to comment on court matters. I have heard the Prime Minister step lightly on judgments from the courts that he didn’t favor. Yes, I heard the present leader step around, nibble at the quality of judgment rendered in a case or two. He should know what he is doing. He is trained in the law business.

It is understandable why there would be certain “protections” for the court, a level of insulation set there to prevent too raw commentaries on certain types of cases. We understand why murder cases are off limits. However, there are certain cases that are “public opinion” and the insulation is altogether excessive, oppressive even.

The website Wikipedia says, “English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.”

The independent.co.uk/news website says, “British libel laws are stifling free speech around the world as wealthy businessmen and celebrities increasingly turn to UK courts to silence their critics abroad, the United Nations has warned. In a report published yesterday, the UN’s Committee on Human Rights criticises the phenomenon of ‘libel tourism’, where foreign businessmen and millionaires use the High Court in London to sue foreign publishers under claimant-friendly defamation laws.

“It said that UK defamation law had discouraged critical media reporting on serious public interest matters, affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work.”

The US, those upstaats, inherited the English legal system, but to their credit they chaynj weh mi joo fu chaynj. The Wikipedia website says that a 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, “radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published ‘with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not’. Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false.”

It will take a lawyer to topple the suffocating system, but about the only time a lawyer in Belize breaks ranks is when he is into skullduggery, after lucre. It is not a very noble profession in Belize. It seems to be more like a secret society.

Many of us thought, hoped, that Audrey Matura would break ranks. Someone has to. Audrey hasn’t. Maybe we shouldn’t expect, lean on a female to do the job. Okay, that’s maybe sexist. But the lines between us will never be so dimmed that the natural instincts of males completely disappear. We expect men to walk on the more dangerous side of the street.

It is incredible that none of them have come forward to explain the truth about litigation risks. It’s all about covering their backsides when they fail at cases they should win. In the absence of knowledge any fool can talk. I am completely ignorant. I will talk. There is little substance to litigation risk.

The government won all its “money” cases against Ashcroft in Belize’s courts. The government lost all its cases against Ashcroft in foreign courts. That isn’t “litigation risk”. That is properly called, “knowing your court.”

Bah for not knowing your court. Now we have to pay Mr. Ashcroft a chunk from our treasury again. I expect our rich government can find the principal up-front, and I pray that by means of the “delay” those who used it for political gain can work out a deal that doesn’t finish us off.

My, there must be one lawyer who feels obligated to put nation over personal gain and their fraternity. We wait. While we wait, a case has come before the court that really is a public opinion matter that we should have been able to address for what it is. If we had, should have, the case at hand could have been preempted.

I said I don’t know the law. But I know it’s there like a sword because there will be so little discussion in the media about this case. There will be reports when the case starts. The verdict will be announced. But there will be little or no discussion in the media. And this matter was really a public opinion case, so there is very little on the matter that can be said which shouldn’t be aired in public. Of course there will be discussions in the bar rooms, and maybe at the markets.

I read the story in the Amandala on Tuesday, August 21. It is written by Rowland A. Parks and it is titled: “Candice Miller, former City Administrator, files wrongful termination claim for $498,135”. Mr. Parks cites the reasons why the Belize City Council terminated Ms. Miller, and they are fiscal. The “public opinion” at the core of this case has to do with the “right” of Ms. Miller to the job she held.

Former Belize City mayor, Darrell Bradley, gave Ms. Miller a contract that appeared “in the face” of established codes, common practice. Ms. Miller was given a contract that extended far beyond the life of the council that Bradley headed. Bradley said he did it for “continuity.”  I think that’s the term he used, “continuity”.

There was some, not enough, national debate on the matter. If the people of a town or city decide they don’t want to “continue” with the council they have, what’s the point of top guns in the administration being hired for continuity? That doesn’t seem practical.

What happens to the new leadership who most likely want to bring in their type of managers, hire the skill complements they want, to begin their new mandate? There are some permanent jobs in administration in these councils. Why did the former mayor of Belize City feel he needed to create another one, albeit one not absolutely fixed in stone?

Would public opinion say that what Darrell Bradley did was a crime? Did he “illegally”, contrary to unwritten codes, common accepted practice, give a friend/colleague/employee an improper contract?

I expect that the judge in the case brought by the former Belize City Council administrator will be asked by her lawyers to rule strictly on a point of law. Not even if it dropped down from the skies would I believe that there is a law in Belize that limits the length of a contract. In the trial, which will start next month (Parks’ story), it, I expect, will be based strictly on the management of Belize City’s funds.

The people of Belize are getting a fair deal. In one of my first columns (2002-03) I opined that blue collar crime was worse than white collar crime because blue collar crime hit an individual while the pain of white collar crime was spread across the collective. I don’t keep files, but I’m pretty sure that is what I wrote.

A letter writer chastised me, pointing out that white collar crime was the primary CAUSE of blue collar crime. I believe what I wrote has merit. But the letter writer has merit too. There’s some “chicken and egg” there, so I’ll leave off.

Was this a faysi contract by D. Bradley? I believe that as a concerned citizen I have a duty, “moral obligation”, yes, to weigh in with my opinion. But I’m not sure I have the “right”, because the matter (related) is before the court.

When the judgment comes, if I consider it to be correct, I think I’m allowed to lay on the praise. But if I consider the judgment to be absurd, absolute foolishness, I expect I am expected to grin and bayr it.

I have heard some people say that we are to accept living with the pain of slow growth because we are a young country. A mi, that’s so much what full belly seh to empty belly. We are living in a country that stifles the knowledge of the people. Remember the radio business? The PUP said absolutely no! You would have thought that when the UDP came to power, their having suffocated under the former regime, they would have said, free up. Absolutely nyet! They said, PUP did it so we can do it too.