Jeremy Enriquez – Redistricting Claimant
BELIZE CITY, Wed. Feb. 19, 2025
The High Court has denied a request for an interim injunction to stop the March 12 general elections. While the claimant, Jeremy Enriquez today announced that he has directed his attorney, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, to file an appeal, it is unknown if the matter will be concluded in time, as only 13 more workdays remain before elections are held.
The application for interim relief brought by Enriquez and the two other claimants (Jessica Tulcey and Rudolph Norales) was heard within a span of almost 7 hours on Wednesday, February 12, by Justice Tawanda Hondora. He delivered his judgment on Tuesday, February 18, and denied the application based on what he deemed as inexplicable anomalies in the signing and authentication of affidavits and exhibits submitted. These were considered fatal deficiencies. As such, the Judge found that there was no coherent application before him on which interim relief could be properly considered and a decision made. Nonetheless, Hondora did review the contents of Enriquez’ affidavits and he was not of the view that the Claimants demonstrated a prima facie case and that they were entitled to the interim reliefs sought. Enriquez’ case for interim relief was based on three grounds: that the Attorney General conceded in the 2019 Belize Peace Movement redistricting case (Claim No. 55 of 2019) that the electoral boundaries in Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) are unconstitutional; that the electoral boundaries outlined in Schedule 1 of the ROPA breach section 90 of the Constitution; and that, with this being the case, to use that Schedule for the upcoming general election would breach their right to vote and their right to protection of the law. The Judge addressed each ground and found that the substantive claimant (Enriquez) had not presented prima facie evidence to substantiate each claim.
In the main claim filed on February 10, the Claimants argued that if elections are held based on the current Schedule 1 of the ROPA, their constitutional right to vote and to protection of the law would be violated because the schedule itself is unconstitutional. As such, to prevent a breach of their constitutional rights, they were asking that there be a redivisioning of the electoral boundaries before the next general elections. Among the reliefs sought in the main claim is a declaration “that the Claimants are entitled to exercise their right to vote in a general election that is based on lawfully constituted electoral divisions with boundaries that are redefined in accordance with the Constitution.”
In the applications for injunctive relief, several orders were sought, including that Prime Minister John Briceño revoke his advice to the Governor General (GG) regarding the dissolution of parliament, that the GG not make a proclamation for the holding of elections, and that the Attorney General be prohibited from acting on the instructions given by the PM regarding the elections.
Turning to the discussion regarding how the filing of the affidavits and exhibits was handled, Justice Hondora stated, “Those affidavits do not comply with the rules set out in CPR 30 and are consequently inadmissible as evidence of the assertions made therein.” Among the violations of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) cited are that Enriquez’ affidavit was undated, did not distinguish between assertions of fact and assertions of information and belief, and did not contain the full name, address and qualifications of the person before whom it was sworn or affirmed. Additionally, the Judge was of the view that Enriquez’ signature and that of a Commissioner of the Supreme Court were both superimposed or digitally added to the affidavit rather than the document having been personally signed. Furthermore, noted the Judge, the affidavit was missing a jurat or a statement of authentication which would indicate that the deponent appeared personally before the commissioner or notary. While a supplemental affidavit and the exhibits were dated, Justice Hondora found that they also had all the other non-compliances of the initial affidavit. He concluded that the affidavits and exhibits were not validly signed and authenticated.
Justice Hondora writes, “Somebody, and it is not clear who, digitally inserted on Mr. Jeremy Enriquez’s affidavit the latter’s signature as well as the signature and stamp for an N. Carla Sebastian, a Commissioner of the High Court…There is more than a whiff that someone was given digital copies of the deponent’s and the Commissioner’s signatures and inserted those in the affidavit said to be that of Mr. Enriquez and the other documents used in this matter. If that be the case, it raises numerous questions of who did that, and under what authority did they do so, and why did they consider it necessary and appropriate to use digital template signatures.” He noted that courts must guard against the risk of fraud “and pleadings being filed by third parties not entitled to do so.”
As part of his order, Justice Hondora required that Ramlogan write to the Registrar, within two days of the judgment, explaining, among other things, if he has an office in Belize, and any arrangements with Estevan Perera and Company LLP regarding the proceedings, as well as clarifying the drafting, signing, authentication and filing of the affidavits and exhibits. He has also been directed to explain why costs should not be awarded based on the CPR regarding “wasted costs” which refers to costs incurred due to improper, unreasonable or a negligent act or omission on the part of any legal practitioner. Both parties were ordered to file additional written submissions on costs.
Referring to the filing of the affidavits, in a release issued today, Enriquez states, “I take full responsibility for signing and commissioning my affidavits, which I executed digitally to ensure their swift submission in light of the urgency of this matter. The legitimacy of my actions remains beyond question.”
Enriquez also remarked that, while he is aware that this is an uphill battle, he is committed to take the case all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice. He pointed out that, as a Belizean from the South, he has “personally experienced the discrimination, socioeconomic injustices, and systemic inequities that have long plagued many areas of the country.” He further remarked, “The struggle against injustice is not new to me—it is part of my lived experience. Far too often, a small elite class seeks to maintain dynastic control over our nation, disenfranchising thousands of Belizeans in the process. This is a fight for equality, fairness, and the very soul of our democracy.” Enriquez added that despite our population increasing by more than 50%, there has been no redistricting for over 20 years.
Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay along with Iliana Swift are representing the Attorney General in this matter, while Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith and Hector Guerra are representing the Elections and Boundaries Commission. Courtenay has remarked about Ramlogan’s conduct in court, that he was disrespectful and inconsistent with the traditions of the Belize Bar. For his part, Minister Henry Usher told Amandala on Sunday, February 16, that Ramlogan’s track record is dubious, and commented, “I’m sure you’ll see his track record if you Google his name coming from Trinidad; but also, what is interesting is that the address of the law firm is Guava Street, which the person who has a law firm there used to be the chairman of the Election and Boundaries Commission, so why is it that in his tenure he did not try to speed up the redistricting process? So, I think it’s all a last-minute effort to frustrate the will of the people…”
In response to that statement, Enriquez says of Ramlogan, “His commitment to upholding the principles of democracy and justice deserves recognition, rather than being overshadowed by politically motivated attacks on his character. The focus must remain on the urgent issue at hand—the right of Belizeans to a fair and just electoral process.”
Notably, the Court also informed that whether the other two claimants, Tulcey and Norales, get to continue as parties in the main claim will depend on how the Claimants prosecute that case. Finally, the judge noted that case management orders will be issued relating to the progression of the main claim.