The public consultations on the Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008 came to Belize City tonight, at the Holy Redeemer Parish Hall – where very vocal Belizeans addressed specific concerns on the bill, moist poignant among them being concerns over changes to Section 17 of the Belize Constitution having to do with rights to petroleum, minerals and accompanying substances, and Section 61, covering the constitution and powers of the Senate.
Public concerns over what they believe to be inadequate sharing of oil revenues came into very sharp focus during the discussions, and some participants – who evidently did not want to hear about the proposed constitutional amendments – said that the most urgent thing the Government needs to be addressing is what is happening out in the streets – the crime and adverse living conditions of the struggling poor.
Among the many people present who expressed their views and raised questions were Senators Godwin Hulse and Henry Gordon, representing the private sector and churches, respectively; former Attorney General, Francis Fonseca, executives of the Belize Bar Association; former United Democratic Party Senator, Ambrose Tillett; and KREM’s Women At Work hosts – Virginia Echols and YaYa Marin-Coleman.
Rhondine Twist (Crown Counsel in the Attorney General’s Ministry) read out and partially elaborated on the proposed amendments, and chairman of the committee, Patrick Faber, Collet area representative and Minister of Education, assured those expressing their views and concerns that the committee would give them fair consideration.
It was clear that for some members of the audience, the issue over whether the Senate should be elected or appointed is still very much alive – and while members and supporters of the Opposition People’s United Party were among the loudest voices trumpeting that call, it was clear that other non-PUP’s, and even one ruling party sympathizer, very much shared their sentiments that not only does the Senate need to be empowered, but the entire electorate should now be given power to decide who will join the ranks of that upper house of Parliament.
The ruling United Democratic Party (UDP) rose to power on February 8, 2008, committed to a specific manifesto – one of the main planks being that it would reform the appointed Senate, giving it clear investigative powers to be enshrined in the Constitution. And so even though the elected Senate referendum that was conducted simultaneously with the February 7th election, had the majority vote of participants, the UDP has said that low voter participation meant that the results were not at all convincing.
Belmopan area representative, John Saldivar, one of the chairs of Wednesday night’s consultations, told those championing the cause of the elected Senate that under the new Referendum Act [which we note is held up because of a court injunction], there is a mechanism whereby those still favoring that elected Senate could trigger a referendum [given that they meet threshold requirements] on this still lingering issue.
The amendments for the Senate permit the addition of one more non-government senator, making the total number 13, and putting the Government-appointed Senators in a minority position. Faber informed that the NGO APAMO (Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations) would manage the selection process for the 13th Senate member on behalf of the NGO community.
However, there were resounding concerns expressed that the ruling party could still control the Senate by influencing those appointed by the social partners – the churches, trade unions, business community, and NGO community.
One point of focus was the presidency of the Senate. Even though in recent years, the president of the Senate has been chosen from outside the appointed members of the Senate, the Constitution currently allows for a president to be selected from among the 12 appointed members of the Senate. That person has a casting vote – which, under the term of former president Philip Zuniga, was exercised to break a 6-6 tie, in favor of Government senators, which, he often said, he was duty-bound to do, in preserving the will of those elected representatives put in power by the electorate.
The new Senate amendments wish to do two things (1) mandate that the president must not be chosen from among the 13 appointed Senators, and (2) take away the president’s casting vote. We note that the difficulty with the second change is that, in the event that a Senator is absent, or an even number of Senators is present, the president would no longer be able to break a tie that may result during voting.
Some participants indicated that the amendments to the powers of the Senate (Section 61A of the Belize Constitution) while giving the Senate more power in some areas, actually takes some away – particularly with respect to judicial appointments and appointments for such offices as the Director of Public Prosecutions.
One important feature of the amendment to the powers of the Senate is that it gives explicit constitutional powers to the Senate to call to account public officials, from Ministers down to chief executive officers, to the Auditor General, Contractor General and Ombudsman.
(Justice Samuel Awich recently issued a ruling on the Narda Garcia case that endorsed the powers enshrined in a 1962 Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, which sets out the investigative powers of the Senate, but the constitutional amendments would entrench those powers and extend their reach up the executive ranks.)
The amendment also lowers the minimum age of the president of the Senate from 30 to 24 years – a measure that was commended at Wednesday night’s forum for allowing younger people to participate in the governance process.
An important concern was raised over proposed amendments to Section 101/102 of the Belize Constitution – the appointment and tenure of Justices of Appeal (the Court of Appeal). The provision which says, where no period is specified in the instrument appointing the judge…”such appointment shall be deemed to subsist until further notice by the Governor-General,” sparked major concerns over security of tenure for such justices of the Appeals Court.
When it came time to address the issue of Section 17 – protection of property rights, there were very strong views expressed against Government’s plans to vest all petroleum, minerals and associated substances found on or under the ground – whether on public or Crown lands or privately held properties – exclusively in itself, and to furthermore do so retroactively, deeming it to “…always to have been so.”
Questions were furthermore raised over why the Government is now putting into the Constitution, a provision that would allow it to divest some of those rights to contractors, who enter in agreements with the Government to exploit petroleum and mineral wealth. This controversial provision would enable contractors to “acquire property in, title to, or control over any petroleum or minerals found in Belize…”
Some persons interpreted this clause as one intended to give oil prospectors more comfort in making their investments in Belize, but others underscored their belief that this was being done at the expense of landowners, whose rights, they argue, are being eroded by the constitutional change.
These and other controversial amendments have fueled some people’s rising sense of distrust, and highlighted some people’s concerns that while the Government is giving with one hand, it is doing so with ulterior motive – to take away with the other.
The Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008 is indeed a wide sweeping piece of law that additionally covers (1) the three-term limit for one holding the Office of the Prime Minister; (2) the recall of House members; (3) the Belize National Coast Guard Service’s inclusion under Belize’s security services; (4) the reconstitution of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission; and (5) the termination of the Auditor General for failure to produce a timely report to the National Assembly.
Prime Minister Dean Barrow has publicly expressed that his administration will no longer pursue preventative detention provisions that would have been enshrined under Section 5 of the Belize Constitution (Protection of right to personal liberty) – which would have allowed for detention of up to 38 days for someone not even charged with a crime, but suspected to be involved with or about to commit a serious crime such as murder, armed robbery, or terrorism; or one known to belong to or suspected to belong to a criminal gang. The provision would have also allowed for the detention of children engaging in criminal activities or anti-social behavior.
The Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on Friday, April 25, 2008. By law, it must undergo a 90-day waiting period, which expires in two weeks, on Thursday, July 24.
It is Prime Minister Dean Barrow who will fix the date on which the constitutional amendments will come into force, but first, the bill has to be passed by a three-fourth majority in the House before going to the Senate and then the Governor-General for his signature. The ruling UDP controls that three-fourth majority, and it is expected that party members in Parliament will endorse the amendment bill, easily meeting that threshold requirement.
A lot may turn, however, on what happens inside the Supreme Court in the weeks ahead. The Chief Justice is expected to soon render his decision on a claim made by four citizens – Albert Vellos, Darrell Carter, Yasin Shoman, and Dorla Dawson (three of them prominent Opposition PUP members) calling on the court for a judicial review of the move by the current administration to proceed with the constitutional amendments without holding a referendum, as required by the Referendum Act.
We note that Parliament had already approved amendments to that act, including the deletion of the section requiring a referendum for changes to fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. However, the Chief Justice has issued an order stopping the Attorney General from seeking the Governor-General’s assent to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, pending his ruling.
At the same time, a very prominent Belizean businessman, Barry M. Bowen, a former PUP Senator and financier, filed a constitutional claim in court Tuesday asking the court to strike down clause 3 of the Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008, which covers amendments to rights to petroleum, minerals and accompanying substances.
Both landmark cases are critical in putting the legislative amendments into clearer legal context, and sorting out the court’s view on whether the current administration is, indeed, doing the right thing – legally – where the controversial changes to the Referendum Act and the Belize Constitution are concerned.
The next public consultation by the Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives to hear views and concerns on the Belize Constitution (Sixth) Amendment Bill is scheduled to be held in Belmopan. We checked with the National Assembly for specifics on the forum and we were told that the date and venue have not yet been set.
Similar consultations have already been held elsewhere around the country, and the ruling party has assured that it will listen to the concerns expressed at the consultations in revising the proposed constitutional amendments.