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

BELIZE CITY, Mon. July 7, 2025

In a ruling handed down on July 3, High Court Justice Tawanda Hondora struck out the latest redistricting case of the Belize Peace Movement (BPM) which was filed in November 2024 against the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) and the Attorney General. The claim was filed by principal claimant Roody Lewinsky Wade and six others, who are members of the BPM, namely Hubert Enriquez, Paul Morgan, Will Maheia, Antonio de la Fuente, Godwin Sutherland and Robert “Bobby” Lopez.

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

The Claimants were challenging the constitutionality of Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) that sets out the boundaries of the 31 electoral divisions. They argued that, given the distribution of registered voters, the Schedule violates section 90(1) of the Belize Constitution which requires that each electoral division have “nearly as may be an equal number of voters eligible to vote.” They contended that to use the Schedule to hold general elections violates their right to protection of the law under Section 6 of the Constitution. 

In the case of Roody Wade, Justice Hondora dismissed his statement of claim on the grounds that he had privity of interest (a close connection to, or a legally recognized relationship with another party with whom he shared a mutual interest) in the BPM’s 2019 redistricting claim, which had ended in a Consent Order in which the EBC agreed it would submit recommendations for redistricting (as provided for under the Constitution) to the National Assembly by July 17, 2023. In fulfilling its duties, the EBC was tasked to consult the guidelines set out in the Court’s expert report of Sean P. Trende. Justice Hondora ruled that Wade, as 1st Claimant is therefore bound by the outcomes of the 2019 matter and is barred from re-litigating it. 

Amandala readers may recall that there was a subsequent ruling by High Court Justice Nadine Nabie on August 8, 2024 on the BPM’s request of October 3, 2023, for the Consent Order to be enforced, given that the EBC’s report failed to abide by international deviation thresholds for disparity in the size of divisions as recommended by the Trende report. Additionally, they sought to reopen and relitigate some of the matters raised in the 2019 claim, given that the Consent Order resolved the dispute not on the merits of the parties’ respective cases, but rather based on the agreement in the Consent Order. Notably, all further matters in the proceedings were stayed except for the purpose of carrying out the terms in the Consent Order. As such, the BPM once more asked the court that Schedule 1 of the ROPA be declared unconstitutional. However, Justice Nabie ruled that the matter had passed, given that the proceedings before her surrounded enforcement of the Consent Order. Justice Nabie ruled that for the Claimants to obtain the relief sought, they needed to bring fresh proceedings. They could also challenge the EBC’s actual proposals.

For his part, Justice Hondora ruled that to bring fresh proceedings, they would have had to first apply for the Consent Order to be set aside. He further explained that they had a choice when they went before Justice Nabie: to seek to set aside the Consent Order or seek to enforce it, and, “Having chosen the latter, the principle of res judicata stopped them from relitigating the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of Schedule 1 of the ROPA.” 

Justice Hondora also dismissed the statement of claim of the six other claimants, citing that it re-litigates the subject matter of the BPM’s 2019 claim in which they were all claimants along with four others. As such, he agreed with the Defense that the new claim constituted an abuse of process of the court. Justice Hondora cited the legal doctrine of estoppel including based on res judicata that bars revisiting matters previously adjudicated. The Defendants argued that the Claimants sued them in 2019 and are vexing them with the same matter for a third time. Justice Hondora found that the Claimants’ responses to the Defendants’ pleas on the point of abuse of process lacked precision, and he proceeded to cite several cases which emphasize that litigation should not go on forever or it becomes unfair to a party. He also explained that it is of no consequence if the resolution was via a consent order or judgment or order, since a consent order also “ends the parties’ dispute.”

The Judge additionally made the point that the Claimants did not dispute the claim from the Defendants that the issues and reliefs sought in the 2019 claim and in the latest claim of 2024 are the same. He wrote, “… the claim based on ‘a continuing violation’ of section 90(1) of the Constitution presupposes that there exists a ruling by a court declaring that Schedule 1 of the ROPA breaches section 90(1) of the Constitution. As the claimants accept, there is not yet a decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction on the issue of the constitutionality of Schedule 1 of the ROPA. This points to the existence of an inherent fallacy in the claimants’ plea.”

The parties have been asked to cooperate and come to an agreement on costs or to state their respective positions by July 31.

The appearances on record are as follows: for the Claimants, Senior Counsel Hubert Elrington; and Hector Guerra for the Elections and Boundaries Commission. The Attorney General was represented by Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay and Deputy Solicitor General, Samantha Matute.

The Belize Peace Movement notified Amandala today that they are preparing a response for later this week.