_{Jeremy Enriquez}

by William Ysaguirre (Freelance Writer)

BELMOPAN, Thurs. May 8, 2025

Three citizens who sought to compel the Elections and Boundaries Commission to urgently conduct a redistricting exercise before any national elections could be conducted in accordance with the Constitution of Belize, have stuck to their guns, and have appealed the decision of Justice Hondora, who ruled that their case had no merit.

The claimants—Jeremy Enriquez, Rudoph Morales and Jesica Tulcey—have now filed an application with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Belize on Monday, May 5, to have Justice Hondora removed from the case, accusing Hondora of bias and misconduct. The claimants’ attorney, Anand Ramlogan, who is based in Miami, reported that his junior colleagues in Trinidad overheard Hondora during a break in the court session, when Hondora seemed unaware that his microphone was still on, remarking that he had already decided to dismiss the application.

Hondora denied making any such comment, when Ramlogan confronted him about it during their virtual, online hearing; but Ramlogan said that his junior colleagues recorded Hondora’s prejudicial statements with a cellphone. Ramlogan is using this alleged recording as evidence of judicial bias, and is asking the Chief Justice to remove him from the case, since Hondora had refused to recuse himself from the case.

The claimants cite the great disparity between the number of voters in the smallest constituencies, such as Fort George, which has a little over 2,000 voters, or the Albert Division, which has a little more than 3,000 voters, and the number of voters in divisions such as Toledo East, which has over 8,500 voters, or Stann Creek West, which has over 10,000 voters. The Constitution calls for the number of voters in each electoral division to be as equal as possible to the number of voters in all other divisions in order to ensure that every citizen has proportionate representation in parliament.

Hondora’s alleged indiscreet remarks during a private discussion with another judge, which were overheard and recorded, prompted Enriquez to lodge a formal complaint on April 23, 2025, with the Chief Justice and the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which investigates any inappropriate conduct by members of the judiciary, as well as oversees potential disciplinary actions against them.

Enriquez said that Hondora’s remarks “demonstrated clear prejudice against me, my legal counsel and the merits of the redistricting case itself.” Unaware that he had been overheard, Hondora proceeded to dismiss Enriquez’s application for an injunction on technical points which he did not at any point raise during the proceedings. He also issued a wasted costs order against Enriquez’s attorney, which would allow the Government to present their attorney’s bill to Ramlogan, SC.

Enriquez said he was left with no option but to “seek a formal order requiring his [the judge’s] removal from the case, as he has continued to issue orders that are, in my view, unfair, unreasonable, and biased.” The judge has also refused to allow the hearings to be conducted virtually, as is customary when one or more of the attorneys is based abroad; and instead has insisted that Ramlogan, who does not reside in the country, present himself in court in person, which adds to the cost of pursuing the case, since Ramlogan must pay airfare and hotel accommodations to appear in court in Belize each time a hearing is held.

Enriquez has further argued that Hondora’s refusal to allow for virtual hearing raises further questions about fairness and impartiality, as, since the pandemic, virtual hearings have become standard in the judiciary, especially when the cases involve overseas counsel, and where local attorneys are not willing to provide representation in a case against the administration. He cited that all appeals in the Court of Appeal are conducted virtually.

Even after Enriquez’s formal complaint to the Chief Justice, Justice Hondora has refused to remove himself from the case—thus forcing Enriquez to file this judicial bias application. Enriquez has noted, however, that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission should also have been prompted to safeguard and protect the integrity of the administration of justice by quick action. Enriquez said he hopes that Hondora would do the right thing and step aside voluntarily. If not, perhaps the High Count might assign “another judge of equal standing to determine the validity of my judicial bias application”, he said.

He further commented, “It’s an awkward situation, which places the judiciary in an embarrassing position, in which it may be compelled to rule on the conduct of one of its own judicial colleagues.”

Enriquez argued that such closed-door discussions which show actual bias during a case compromise the fairness of proceedings and undermine the credibility of our legal system. He said he firmly believes he “did not receive a fair hearing because the judge engaged in secret, prejudicial discussions with another judge, denied in court that such an unethical conversation occurred, and concealed his technical points, only to ambush us with those points in his judgment.”

Enriquez says he will fight his case all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice, if necessary, if the High Court fails to order a recusal, “to safeguard citizens’ right to a fair and impartial hearing”. He has also appealed Hondora’s order for wasted costs against Ramlogan, and for the Court to stay that order until the appeal is resolved.