The Chief Justice granted the injunction on October 17, 2006. Attorney Kareem Musa (one of the Prime Minister?s sons) was initially arguing the case for The Belize Times, the newspaper of the ruling People?s United Party, and its editor, Andrew Steinhauer; attorney Elson Kaseke successfully argued for the press?s application, which called on the court to lift the injunction order.

Senior Counsel, Dean Barrow, represented Young.

The Belize Times had argued that the rare injunction was a muzzle on the press, and they argued that they would have proved the truth of their statements against Young.

At the time the CJ granted the injunction, he had said that Musa, the attorney for the defendants, had told the court that they would be relying on the defense of justification. But the CJ noted that the attorney did not give affidavit evidence nor had he asked to file any.

In his decision today the Chief Justice cited two affidavits by Steinhauer that had later been submitted to bolster their case.

?In their first affidavit, they aver that they published what they did concerning the claimant in ?the public interest,? and the right of the public to know. In other words, though not expressly saying so, the defendants are raising the defense of justification,? said CJ Conteh.

Steinhauer?s second affidavit, which Dr. Conteh noted was only received yesterday, added that Steinhauer and The Belize Times would justify the alleged libel at trial.

?This simply means that they stand by their publication and that it is true,? the CJ elaborated.

Acting on Senior Counsel Young?s behalf, Senior Counsel Barrow told the court that the arguments of the newspaper and its editor cannot succeed in court.

In today?s decision the CJ noted that in the event that libel is proven, Young, in addition to being vindicated, would be entitled to damages. Because of this fact the courts have been very cautious in issuing injunctions of this sort.

In his concluding statements, Chief Justice Conteh cautioned, however, that, ??nothing should be done to hobble either side until after the trial and determination of this case. But in the face of the applicants? failure to give an undertaking not to repeat their publications of the claimant and were they to do so, or continue doing so, and at trial were not to succeed, I need hardly underline the dire consequences that may flow.?

Young told us this evening that Barrow told the Chief Justice that the Steinhauer affidavits never showed justification. She said that the newspaper claims that she made lots of money from BTL, SATIIM (Sarstoon Temash Institute for Indigenous Management), and other clients, and while those statements are not libelous in themselves, what she considers libelous is the newspaper?s assertion that she is greedy, hypocritical and malicious.

The ruling PUP and its newspaper have asserted that attorney Young has opened up herself to be ?fair political game? by attacking the current administration?which they say she has done without any attempt from the party to restrain her.

The substantive hearing of the libel case, Lois Young versus Steinhauer and The Belize Times, has been set for December 8 and 9, 2006.