BELIZE CITY, Thurs. Mar. 10, 2022– On January 31, 2020, former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin delivered an oral judgment in the civil suit brought by Hon. John Briceño (the country’s prime minister), who was Opposition leader at the time, and Cayo South area representative, Hon. Julius Espat, against the former Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Dean Barrow, and in that judgment he ruled that $1.3 billion dollars was spent by the then Minister of Finance without the requisite parliamentary approval and, as such, was a violation of the Constitution of Belize and the Finance and Audit Reform Act. At the time, the claimants sought a permanent injunction to bar Hon. Barrow from engaging in further spending of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without parliamentary approval, but CJ Benjamin instead issued a stay for 6 months on the injunction, to give former Prime Minister Barrow time to carry out the necessary amendments in order to correct the perceived illegality.

The issue here is that in April 2020, CJ Benjamin retired from the bench before perfecting his judgment and approving a draft order for the claimants – resulting effectively in a lapse of the 6-month stay, without no further concrete directive being issued by the court. This gave rise to this most recent application by the claimants, Hon. Briceño and Espat, who sought to have the Supreme Court lift the stay and post-judgment injunction, on the basis of the oral transcript and arguments in the case presided over by former CJ Benjamin.

One week ago, on March 3, 2022, Chief Justice Michelle Arana (Ag.) delivered a judgment on the application brought by Hon. Briceno and Hon. Espat in claim no. 142 of 2019, and she outlined the former Chief Justice’s failure to perfect the oral order.

“Justice Benjamin, having received the draft and despite being the original arbiter of the facts and the law, in this case, failed to settle the order. An order was never perfected, the terms are highly contentious, and therefore no one knows exactly what was the order made by Chief Justice Benjamin,” CJ Arana’s judgment states.

The claimants submitted in their application that the court was obliged to recognize and settle the terms of the order handed down by CJ Benjamin, while the defendants, including Rt. Hon. Barrow, contended that the claim must be heard de novo, or from the beginning, in order for a new judge to hand down a sound ruling.

In the defendant’s legal submissions, they stated, “It is not for another Court to supply an order where none was made nor supply reasons not given by another judge. This Court cannot step into the shoes of the then Chief Justice and seek to right what was not done. “
The claimants, for their part, stated that it was the current court’s responsibility to complete the process that CJ Benjamin had left half-done.

“In the case, when Chief Justice Benjamin stayed the permanent injunction for six months, the Court retained a remedial and/or supervisory discretion to reconsider the stay if circumstances changed during that time and to grant the injunction sought. In constitutional cases, the Court has the even more extensive power to fashion new remedies as appropriate to ensure compliance with its declaratory order. To refuse to grant the order now sought in the circumstances now before the Court would be severely detrimental not only to the interests of the Claimants, but would be completely contrary to public interest and undermine the rule of law,” the claimant’s submission states.

CJ Arana, in her ruling, however, flatly rejected that position and gave a serious admonition to the current administration.

“To seek to have this court, a court of concomitant jurisdiction, rely on the transcript of the case to infer the terms of the order, and lift a stay which may or may not exist, and give effect to an order that is ambiguous and perhaps non-existent is preposterous. Let me be clear in saying that this decision is in no way an abdication of this court’s role in guarding the Constitution and upholding the Rule of Law; the Court is a jealous guardian of both. The Court is not a football to be kicked around by opportunists of any political party; it is hoped that the grave ill complained of, that is, the bringing of supplementary allocations and expenditure raised or received by the State without first seeking approval of the House of Representatives, as well as the retrospective appropriation of monies contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the Finance and Audit Reform Act has now ceased, since the parties before the court in this Claim are now wearing different hats. It is no part of this court’s function to seek to give effect to an order when this court has not had the benefits of hearing arguments and considering evidence which gave rise to the oral judgment, where the evidence of affidavits in support of the Application are contentious, and where the original arbiter of the facts and the law has failed to settle the order despite receiving drafts for approval submitted by counsel,” CJ Arana’s ruling states. The CJ noted that the situation would have been different if an order had been made and the terms of the order clearly set out.

The application was thus dismissed and the court costs were awarded to the defendants.

While the ruling of the former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin – which declared the previous administration’s spending of $1.3 billion to be unlawful —was not quashed or overturned, this judgment denies the claimants the remedy of an injunction effectively against the legislature and the executive, in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The defendant’s submission in the written judgment states, “The purported injunctive order in effect seeks to bind the State. Assuming though not admitting that a declaratory order was made on January 31, 2020, granting an injunction in this matter would in effect cause this Honourable Court to abrogate unto itself endless powers to supervise and usurp the function of the legislature.”

This case, initiated to highlight illegal spending and bring judgment against the former prime minister, turned out to be a revelation of the gross inconsistencies at the bench under the leadership of retired Chief Justice Benjamin and a stark warning for the current leadership of this country. It must be noted that Port of Belize Limited has brought a case against the Christian Workers Union in an attempt to block a $1.5 million payment made by the government to the PBL’s stevedores, based on the claim that this administration did not receive the requisite parliamentary approval to pay out the funds—something that Hon. Briceño has said will be remedied during the government’s upcoming presentation of a new budget in the House of Representatives.