_{Hubert Elrington, S.C. along with BPM Claimants Paul Morgan, Robert Lopez and Antonio de la Fuente}

Counsel for the AG says BPM wants 2nd bite at the cherry with redistricting case

BELIZE CITY, Mon., Apr. 7, 2025

High Court Justice Tawanda Hondora today heard oral arguments for the preliminary issue of abuse of process in Claim 730 of 2024 brought by the Belize Peace Movement (BPM) against the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) and the Attorney General. The BPM Claimants are comprised of Roody Wade, Hubert Enriquez, Paul Morgan, William Maheia, Godwin Sutherland, Antonio de la Fuente and Robert Lopez. The hearing lasted just over two hours, and the judge has reserved his judgment for a later date to be announced. The hearing was in person and therefore, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who joined attorney Sharon Pitts to represent the Claimants, was unable to attend as virtual appearances were denied. Senior Counsel Hubert Elrington held brief for Pitts.

The reliefs being sought in Claim 730 of 2024 include a declaration that the voters list and the electoral divisions as contained in Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People’s Act (ROPA) are unconstitutional, and that the continued violation of section 90(1)(a) of the Constitution is a violation of Section 6 of the Constitution which speaks to equal protection of the law. They also seek a declaration that the EBC be precluded from using Schedule 1 until it is amended to be made compliant with the Constitution.

The Defense relied on the principle of res judicata: that the matter has already been adjudicated in Claim 55 of 2019 and cannot be pursued further by the same claimants, otherwise it would translate to abuse of process. They are therefore asking for the matter to be struck out.

_{Hector Guerra – Attorney-at-law representing Elections and Boundaries Commission}

Hector Guerra, who along with Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith represents the EBC, addressed the aspect of whether the claimants in the 2019 case are the same as the claimants in the current case. He argued that, apart from First Claimant Roody Wade, the six other claimants in Claim 730 of 2024 were part of Claim 55 of 2019. As regards Wade, he applied the legal concept of privity of interest to argue that there is a connection between him and the other claimants by the mere fact of their interests and rights claimed. He further pointed out that only Wade has filed an affidavit in Claim 730, and he has done so on behalf of all the other claimants.

As to the similarity of the current claim to Claim 55 of 2019, the latter sought a review of the EBC’s failure to comply with section 90(1)(a) of the Constitution and the claimants sought declarations that the Commission comply with the Constitution within a certain timeframe; that electoral divisions be re-divided; and that the continued violation of Section 90(1)1(a) is a violation of Section 6 of the Constitution. They also sought injunctive relief for the 2020 general elections to be stayed until the Commission complied with the Constitution. It is based on the similarity of the reliefs sought that the Defendants sustain that the matter has already been adjudicated. They pointed out that instead, the Claimants should have challenged the EBC’s report with redistricting recommendations. According to Guerra, all governmental agencies, statutory bodies and bodies formed under the Constitution “are subject to judicial review in terms of decisions, reports, any statutory obligation that they are required to undertake.”

Guerra, in an interview after the hearing, pointed to the Cabinet release dated April 3, 2025, which states that “Cabinet agreed to facilitate the Commission to ensure that the re-divisioning exercise will be completed within one year.” In court, Guerra had stated that the process to be undertaken by the Commission is in train, and should be given the opportunity to be completed.

Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, who represents the Attorney General, presented the argument that, due to the principle of separation of powers, the Court cannot decide the electoral boundaries and cannot compel parliament to pass a bill.

For their part, the Claimants assert that Wade was not privy to the details of the 2019 claim until August of 2024 when High Court Justice Nadine Nabie handed down her judgment regarding the application to enforce the Consent Order that had arisen out of the 2019 claim. The Consent Order set out the terms (including timelines) for the compilation and presentation to the claimants and the National Assembly of the EBC’s recommendations for redistricting. As to the similarity of the cases, the Claimants submit that there is no judgment which conclusively addresses the constitutionality of the apportionment of Schedule 1 of the ROPA. Their submissions are that, while the Consent Order represents an enforceable agreement between both parties, it does not create binding precedent nor resolve the broader question of the constitutionality of Schedule 1 of the ROPA. They further argue that when they went before Justice Nabie with an application to enforce the Consent Order, the judge refrained from deciding on the legal merits of Claim 55 of 2019, as the question of constitutional compliance of the Schedule fell outside of the remit of the enforcement application. They were therefore told to bring a fresh claim, which they did with Claim 730 of 2024.

The Claimants hold that Claim 730 of 2024 is a constitutional claim of immense public interest as “it touches and concerns the election process which is the bedrock of Belizean Democracy.”