The Amandala Press
3304 Partridge Street
Belize City
Attention Mr. Russell Vellos
Dear Sir,
Re: Zenaida Moya vs. UDP
Enclosed herein please find memo regarding the abovementioned claim from Mr. Michael Young, as a legal advisor for the United Democratic Party. He would be grateful if it can be published in your newspaper in the way it is worded.
Yours faithfully
YOUNGS LAW FIRM
Enc.
SHORT MEMO ON ZENAIDA VS UDP CASE
Hype is one thing. Reality and truth are frequently another. The claim that Her Worship Mrs. Zenaida Moya Flowers scored a “victory” over the UDP in the ruling handed down by Justice Hafiz on the 17th of December 2009 is simply not true. To be “victorious” you need to accomplish your objective and vanquish your foe. You may score a goal but lose the game. In making the application for injunctions to the Court, Mrs. Flower’s real objective was to prevent the UDP from continuing or commencing any process for disciplinary proceedings against her and thus vanquish the UDP’s capacity to exercise any powers in that respect whilst the case is pending. Her application not only failed in achieving this objective but the Court effectively shut the door on it, holding that in this regard there was no “serious issue to be tried”. When a reporter from WAVE interviewed me about the case right after the ruling, I explained the decision was “good” for the UDP – the Party can if it so wishes, take steps to exercise its power under Article 11 of the UDP Constitution to investigate and cause disciplinary proceedings to be conducted. I refused to use the word “victorious”. The situation is that a sitting UDP Mayor is charged with criminal offences, reacted by lashing out at the Party including its leadership, and has taken the Party to Court. The bottom line is that after the Court’s ruling – the Party can address this problem within the Party and under its Constitution.
Dated 21st December 2009
Michael C. Young
Legal Adviser for the UDP