BELIZE CITY, Tues. July 31, 2018– Belize’s highest court, the Port of Spain, Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), handed down a ruling this morning in favor of the Ashcroft alliance which had filed a claim challenging the competency of Mr. Justice Samuel Awich, who was appointed to sit on the Belize Court of Appeal in June 2012.

The CCJ ruling instructs the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) to investigate the allegations against Justice Awich dating back to when he was a justice of the Supreme Court.

‘This paves the way to allow the JLSC to refer the complaint to the Belize Advisory Council which would then investigate whether the judge should be removed from office,” the CCJ said in its press release today.

The release added, “The … (CCJ) Bench considered Section 102 of the Constitution of Belize which provides for the removal from office of a Justice of Appeal for misbehaviour and/or inability. The court held that the section was clear that the JLSC’s role was strictly to consider whether the complaints were serious, and if so, to refer them to the Belize Advisory Council, whose role was to investigate the matter and to advise the Governor-General whether the judge should be removed.

“The CCJ said that a judicial officer’s past conduct, depending on the circumstances, could bear relevance on the question of whether removal from office was warranted. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission was therefore bound to determine whether the complaint was grave enough to warrant referral, and the JLSC ought not to have dismissed the request without proper consideration.”

“The Court also provided guidance on the issue of what constitutes ‘inability’ and ‘misbehaviour’. The judgment stated that the term ‘inability’ referred to the lack of capacity to perform the duties of the office at the requisite level of competence and skill. A judge who was unable to write and deliver judgments on time or who was often overturned on appeal may lack the ability to do his job. The CCJ noted that a judge may be unable to perform the functions of the office at one level of the judiciary but be perfectly capable of performing the functions at another level,” said the CCJ release.

In May 2012, Prime Minister Dean Barrow recommended that Justice Awich be appointed to sit as a justice on the Court of Appeal. The appointment, however, was not supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who, according to the Constitution of Belize, must be consulted regarding appointments to the high courts. Justice Awich’s elevation to the Court of Appeal was also opposed by the Bar Association.

The Ashcroft Alliance, in this case, is represented by British Caribbean Bank, Dean Boyce and Lord Michael Ashcroft. They filed a claim against the appointment on the ground that Justice Awich’s long delays in delivering judgments amounted to misconduct, and besides, the Court of Appeal had questioned several of his Supreme Court rulings, so, as a consequence, he was unfit to sit on the Court of Appeal.

In beginning their fight against Justice Awich’s appointment, the Ashcroft Alliance wrote to the JLSC (which is an oversight mechanism for the Judiciary and is chaired by Chief Justice, Kenneth Benjamin), requesting that the JLSC investigate Justice Awich and send its findings to the Belize Advisory Council, which has the power to recommend dismissal of a judge to the Governor General.

The JLSC, however, dismissed the Ashcroft alliance complaint, characterizing it as “misconceived and premature,” because Justice Awich was already appointed to the Court of Appeal.

The Ashcroft alliance initiated legal proceedings against the JLSC after its refusal to look into their allegations against Justice Awich. When their claim went to the Supreme Court before Justice Courtenay Abel, he ruled that the JLSC ought to have looked into the complaint.

The JLSC and the government were not in agreement with Justice Abel’s ruling in the matter, and so they filed an appeal of his decision at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court decision and the Ashcroft alliance sought and obtained permission to take the matter to the final court, the CCJ.

Today’s CCJ decision is consequential because it puts Justice Awich’s tenure on the Court of Appeal bench under the kind of scrutiny that could see him removed as a Court of Appeal Justice at the end of the lengthy process.

Following the CCJ’s teleconference hearing, Ashcroft’s attorney, Eamon Courtenay, S.C., told the media, “The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. It means that the complaint that has been filed against Justice Awich is to go back to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission for it to consider whether or not they should refer it to the Belize Advisory Council.”

Courtenay added, “Originally, the complaint was that Mr. Justice Awich should be removed from office because of his inability to perform his functions as the Supreme Court judge, and for misconduct in the performance of that function.”

 “This judgment simply confirms that there is a process and procedure in the constitution that makes all judges, regardless if you are in the Magistracy, all the way to the CCJ, that you are subject to review, that you must be accountable. That you must perform in such a way that public confidence is enjoyed and public confidence is maintained in the way in which you conduct yourself and the way in which you deliver your judgments,” Courtenay said.

The JLSC was represented at the hearing today by Deputy Solicitor General, Samantha Matute-Tucker.

The CCJ also ordered that the JLSC pay the cost of court at the CCJ and the courts below.

Last December, Franz Parke, a Jamaican-born attorney and law schoolmate of Prime Minister Dean Barrow, was appointed by the Prime Minister to the Court of Appeal, but resigned less than two months after he was sworn in by Governor General, Sir Colville Young.

As in the case of the appointment of Justice Awich to the Court of Appeal, there was strong opposition to Parke sitting on the Court of Appeal, which PM Barrow ignored.

In the end, Justice Parke resigned rather than face a lawsuit challenge to his appointment. “The Office of the Prime Minister understands that Justice Parke made his decision in order to spare the Court any exposure that a trial on the issue of his tenure would create,” said the government press release which announced his resignation.