_{Photo: High Court of Belize}

BELIZE CITY, Thurs. Aug. 8, 2024

High Court Justice Nadine Nabie has dismissed the application of the Belize Peace Movement (BPM) that sought enforcement of the “redistricting case” Consent Order. She ruled today that there was, in fact, compliance by the 2nd respondent, the Chairman of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), representing the EBC. In her judgment, Justice Nabie opens with the statement, “Vox populi, vox Dei. Free and fair elections are important to any democracy as it is the foundation for a legitimate government.” She notes that she arrived at her decision after having examined all the evidence and oral submissions. The Latin phrase is an old proverb which means “the voice of the people [is] the voice of the gods.”

Back in October 2019, the BPM had taken the then United Democratic Party Government to court seeking an order for a redistricting exercise to be held so that there would be compliance with Section 90 of the Constitution, which stipulates that each electoral division should have as equal a number of voters as possible. It became Claim No. 55 of 2019. The matter languished in court and then general elections were announced in October 2020 for November 11 that year. The BPM sought an injunction to prevent the election from taking place, but both mass parties successfully argued that they had already invested significantly and thus for the general elections not to be stopped. Then Acting Chief Justice Michelle Arana agreed and the elections proceeded.

When the matter continued after the 2020 elections, the parties arrived at the Consent Order (dated November 29, 2022) that would stay further proceedings in the claim and see the Commission submit its report to the National Assembly by July 2023. However, the leaked report revealed that the recommendations of the Commission fell way short of the 10 to 15% deviation margin by international standards, and instead presented a deviation of between 25 and 35% in some instances. The BPM then sought enforcement of the Consent Order on October 3, 2023, considering that the report was not in compliance with the Constitution. The Commission’s report was not tabled at the House of Representatives until May 30 this year, and remains in House Committee until it is sent back for second reading. That won’t happen until after September 13 this year when the Parliament comes off its 6-week recess.

The BPM submitted via its attorneys that the Expert Report of Sean P. Trende, commissioned by Lord Michael Ashcroft who was an interested party in the substantive case, was to provide “an objective view as to whether the electoral divisions as presently constituted are sufficiently equal or malapportioned,” and that it was completely ignored by the respondents. Trende had highlighted that only four of our 31 electoral divisions are not severely malapportioned, and provided three maps with proposed realignments to cure the problem. However, Deputy Solicitor General Samantha Matute countered that the Commission did refer to the Expert Report, but “also had to consider section 90(2) and the considerations contained therein, namely transport and other facilities and physical features.” Matute added that it is up to the National Assembly to determine if the Commission’s proposals will be accepted, and so the Commission’s work is done. The Court agreed, and Justice Nabie did note that the application was not misconceived as the claimants were entitled to seek enforcement, but she noted that they could have challenged the report itself, though she admits that would be a difficult task.

The Court also denied the applicant’s request for a declaration that the Schedule of the Representation of the Peoples Act (ROPA) is unconstitutional, finding that this matter ought to have been addressed as part of the substantive claim and not in the enforcement application. She wrote, “That stage of the matter has already concluded; these are proceedings for enforcement and not for determination of whether or not to grant the substantive relief in the main claim. I am unable to grant such a declaration on the application before me. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the respondents had not complied with the Consent Order (i.e. if they were in breach of their obligations contained in the Schedule), I would still be unable to grant the reliefs sought in the application. The proper course of action would be to file fresh proceedings to obtain these desired reliefs.”

Attorney Arthur Saldivar who represents the BPM told Amandala this evening that the judgment is comprehensive, and it has no initial objection to what she puts forward. However, he highlights that the judgment does not sanction the proposals of the Commission. He has not yet consulted the members of the BPM to determine how they would want to proceed.

We note here that several government ministers, including the Prime Minister and elected PUP representatives, have gone on the record saying that they believe we are out of time for a redistricting exercise before the next general elections. Saldivar pointed out that there have been unconstitutional elections for four election cycles in Belize.

Justice Nabie made no order for costs, being cognizant that, “This affects all citizens of Belize, in that the applicants are trying to make sure that elections are free and fair, and that each vote has as equal weight as possible, and that malapportionment is avoided or reduced. I bear in mind that this is a matter of public interest and of constitutional importance as it touches and concerns the election process.”