By Marco Lopez

BELIZE CITY, Mon. May 9, 2022

Last Thursday, the Maya Leaders Alliance (MLA) and the Government of Belize were back before the Caribbean Court of Justice for the first compliance hearing since the submission of the government’s version of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) protocol, and the Implementation Road Map that will guide the implementation of communal land rights for the Maya people. These documents were submitted by GoB despite the explicit rejection of, and opposition to, their contents by the MLA and TAA (Toledo Alcaldes Association), the recognized representatives of the Maya people in this case, and have since been reviewed by two expert witnesses by order of the CCJ.  

In last week’s proceedings, the court pressed the parties to meet and discuss the recent documents and to make efforts to salvage some type of mutual trust that will be key to ensuring the process can move forward. This admonition from the court was given after submissions were made by the MLA’s lead attorney, Leslie Mendez, who pointed to certain actions by the government that, in the view of her clients, undermined their ability to negotiate on behalf of the Maya people and stymied the implementation process.

“We have filed reports in this matter to update the court, and I am sure that, at least from our position, your honors can deduce that we consider the state of this process to be rather in a state of chaos at the moment,” Mendez stated. She went on to tell the court that ever since the Briceño administration took office, the MLA and TAA have observed an “increased interest” in the internal affairs of the Maya people.  

Mendez added, “We saw that the Commissioner and the Ministry were exhibiting an insistence in choosing who the representatives of the Maya people are. Once again for us, and the experts agree, that it is not for the government to act as an arbiter of legitimacy among the community as to who their representatives are.“

The Maya Land Rights case was brought to the courts by the Maya Leaders Alliance and the Toledo Alcaldes Association, who, during the hearing of the matter, were the primary legal representatives of the Maya people in their quest for communal land rights, along with approximately 22 others. Recently, the government’s representatives and certain Maya interest groups have questioned the legitimacy of the MLA and TAA as the collective representative of the Maya people. The government attempted at the compliance hearing on Thursday to have Sarstoon Temash Institue for Indigenous Management (SATIIM) enter into the proceedings, but the court quashed that attempt.

“I think it was announced that one of the other Maya groups, SATIIM, would want to enter these proceedings. We have looked at that, and I can tell you upfront that is not what we are going to entertain. Because it’s not a procedure where you can intervene; that period is long behind us. It is just about an implementation of a decision between the parties that are before us; no other parties can interfere”, the presiding judge at the CCJ, Justice Jacob Wit, said.  

The request for an additional expert witness to be entered into the proceedings was also rejected by the presiding panel.  

The court in this compliance hearing stressed the need to “lower the temperature” following fiery statements from MLA counsel that accused the government of threatening  the sustainability and stability of the process by attempting to choose who the legitimate representatives of the Maya people are, a decision that, according to Mendez, is not theirs to make.

 “We saw that the Commissioner and the ministry were exhibiting an insistence on choosing who the legitimate representatives of the Maya people are, once again, and the experts agree that it is not for the government to act as an arbiter of legitimacy among the community as to who their representatives are. It is not for the government who the winners and losers are among the community, and we see that is in fact what is happening,” said Mendez, who further remarked that the government’s decision to give clout to other organizations purporting to represent the Maya peoples amounts to an upending of the process shepherded by the MLA/TAA for 7 years.  

“This sort of attack is not new. It is not new that we see challenging the legitimacy of traditional leaders. In fact, we would say that it is rooted in biases and prejudices that really just reflect the vestiges of colonialism in our communities,” Mendez said. She further stated that the attempt is a blatant sign of bad faith.

“The government knows very well with who it’s negotiating, and it cannot pretend now that 7 years later, that that issue is in any way challenged or unsettled,” Mendez said.

The court also noted that they cannot choose the entities which will represent the Maya people, and pointed out that since the onset of the process, including the efforts in court to obtain a consent order from the CCJ, they have been represented by the MLA and TAA.

“We also have to recognize that although the representation of the Maya people is an important issue, it is an issue that the court cannot decide. I think all parties agree with that, so whether or not the Maya people can come to some conclusion…up to now they have been represented by the MLA and the Toledo Alcaldes Association, and if they want to change, that is up to them, but these are the two groups that are before us. And it is also a fact that they are the appellants, and of course, when we look at the implementation of a consent order, we have to realize that as we are a court of law, there is res judicata between the parties. And so the TAA and the MLA are parties in the process, and for that fact alone they cannot be ignored,” Justice Wit explained.

New lead counsel for the government in this compliance hearing, Andrew Marshalleck, stated that they disagree with the allegation submitted by the MLA legal team but have no intention to get into further disputes on those matters, stressing that rebuilding confidence between the parties is the immediate concern.

“While there is an immediate jurisdiction, what the court cannot do is to order the parties to have trust and confidence in each other in that [inaudible] process. That is something that has to be cultivated by the parties and nurtured and protected by them. That is, of course, not helped, or assisted any with allegations of bad faith, with the kinds of disputes that have been raised, it, from my perspective, I’m new to this;  I just started reading the papers to see how best to navigate to a successful conclusion—the steps that need to be taken to comply with the consent order. And frankly, coming up with an allegation of the nature and a dispute of that nature makes it neigh impossible to reach the end of the road here, so we need to get back to rebuilding the relationship and reestablishing if possible the trust and confidence in each other in pursuing the steps that need to be taken to achieve the objectives that we all agree must be achieved,” Marshalleck said in his opening statements to the court.

Justice Wit, the presiding judge, agreed and pointed out that the purpose of the hearing was to ensure compliance with the consent order.

In his remarks, Justice Wit said, “I think all present would agree that we have to lower the temperature maybe and get back to a more practical working relationship between the parties, because that relationship has to be maintained whether some like it or not.”

The court received opinions from two experts on the FPIC protocol and the implementation map submitted by the government of Belize to ensure those documents comply with the consent order, Justice Wit noted.

“I can say this about the point of the jurisdiction of the court, of course. This is unknown territory in a way, but we are here to see if there is compliance with the implementation of the consent order; that is what this is about. That is why the court asked the experts when we are talking about the FPIC protocol to see what was on the table, and what the government concluded was in occurrence with that consent order. Because that is what we are checking. Now it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be better or that certain things could be changed, but the idea is that in the end, the FPIC protocol is in compliance with the consent order,” Justice Wit outlined.

The two experts presented extensive assessments of the wording of the draft FPIC protocol submitted by GoB, and ultimately the parties were ordered to meet to discuss the FPIC protocol and the Implementation Road Map submitted by the government. They are to give a report on the result of that meeting, which is scheduled to take place in the next two weeks or so, before a date for the next compliance hearing is set.

The court, despite the seemingly sweltering tone of the proceedings, stated that they consider the submission of the FPIC and the Implementation Road Map documents from the government as a sign of progress, calling it a “huge step forward.”

The parties are asked to hopefully agree on a roadmap, considered the heart of the process, and to report back to the court if an urgent concern is raised or if some agreement is reached. Justice Winston Anderson even suggested that the parties release a joint communiqué following the meeting as a sign of renewed  confidence between each other, to which the presiding judge replied, “yes, well you never know, miracles do happen…and it should not really be a miracle… but we will see how thing goes.”