28.3 C
Belize City
Thursday, March 28, 2024

World Down Syndrome Day

Photo: Students and staff of Stella Maris...

BPD awards 3 officers with Women Police of the Year

Photo: (l-r) Myrna Pena, Carmella Cacho, and...

Suicide on the rise!

Photo: Iveth Quintanilla, Mental Health Coordinator by Charles...

PI concludes today; decision 2 p.m. Wednesday

GeneralPI concludes today; decision 2 p.m. Wednesday
Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin has set tomorrow, Wednesday, April 4, at 2:00 p.m., as the time when he will declare whether he will allow Martin Galvez, the PUP candidate for Lake I in the March 7 general elections, to file an election petition challenging the validity of Mark King’s election to the House of Representatives on the basis of a contract with the Government of Belize that King has allegedly failed to disclose.
  
Speaking with the media after a preliminary hearing held this evening, Galvez’s attorney, Lisa Shoman, SC, noted that the government has not submitted any evidence denying the existence of the contract.
  
Shoman had told the court that it is not the existence of the contract that is the point of contention; it is the fact that King, according to affidavit evidence filed by Galvez, Marlon Clarke and Henry Charles Usher, failed to disclose his interest in the contract at least one month prior to the general elections. This, Shoman submitted to the court, violates section 58.1.h of the Belize Constitution.
  
Denys Barrow, SC, attorney for Mark King, assisted by his daughter Naima Barrow, pointed out to the court that the affidavit evidence presented by Galvez and Marlon Clarke were inadmissible, because they did not properly present the facts.
  
With respect to the Galvez affidavit, alleging the undisclosed contract, Barrow pointed to Galvez’s assertion that “it has come to my attention” that King holds a contract with the Government.
  
Barrow said: “A bell clangs with this… ‘it has come to my attention.’ Did it come to my attention at Battlefield Park? …and who told you? A street urchin?”
  
The questions asked by Barrow, Shoman told the court, are exactly the types of things that would be tackled and tested at a trial. The question of whether an urchin said something or the issue of mistakes on an affidavit, regarding conflicting dates Barrow had earlier pointed out, are to be dealt with at the petition hearing, Shoman contended, in arguing for leave to file the election petition.
  
In making his submissions, Barrow pointed to the affidavit of Marlon Clarke, in which he deposed on a March 27 affidavit, that he had visited the Belize Companies Registry on March 28 to obtain the documents he used as evidence in his affidavit.
  
Chief Justice Benjamin told Shoman: “I am getting a bit worried when you are saying that any old evidence will do.”
  
“I don’t mean that,” Shoman responded.
  
The main difference of opinion between the attorneys in the case has to do with the technical interpretation of Section 58.1.h of the Belize Constitution. In extensive arguments before the court, Barrow, using supporting evidence from the Caribbean, argued that the section really applies to persons within the public service, such as the teaching profession, judicial and legal services, the fire service, and the like.
  
However, Shoman insisted that the section itself gives a clear indication of the context of the law, as it relates to the Belizean context. The issue, said Shoman, is not so much a disqualification based on the existence of a contract with the government, but that the disclosure requirement was not met. The contract must be declared so that the public can decide what weight to put on it, she elaborated.
  
Contrary to submissions made by Barrow, Shoman maintained that the Mark King contract is encompassed within the 58.1.h clause.
  
In her presentation to the court, attorney Shoman said that the contract that King has with the Government, via Brints Security, a sole proprietorship King owns, is for services spanning August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2013, for a total contract price of $135,216.
  
Referring to the Galvez affidavit evidence, which presents the contract, however, Barrow said: “This is absolutely impermissible!
  
“He cannot produce a copy of a contract which he has said he has seen and compared with the original… He cannot say it is a copy. He has not said he made the copy.”
  
Barrow went on to say that Galvez hasn’t presented evidence that he can corroborate that the signature is indeed Mark King’s, and he doesn’t claim to have been present when the contract presented to the court was signed.
  
The same nullification can be applied to the affidavit of Marlon Clarke, said Barrow.
  
He did not, however, take issue with the affidavit of Henry Charles Usher, who deposed to the court that based on searches he did in the Amandala, The Reporter, The Belize Times and The Guardian newspapers, King did not publish a notice disclosing the contract.
  
“The affidavit [of Clarke] is as a matter of law inadmissible. It is not competent for the applicant to say, if you give me leave, although I have no admissible evidence at this juncture, it may turn out … [later ] … what I am fishing for may be caught on that hook,” Barrow told the court.
   
Shoman noted to journalists following this evening’s hearing, which concluded after 6:00, that a similar application filed by the People’s United Party candidate for the Albert Division, David Craig, against Herman Longsworth, the United Democratic Party candidate who was elected as area representative for Albert, was granted leave on Monday by Supreme Court Justice Michelle Arana.
  
Benjamin will announce tomorrow afternoon whether he will allow Martin Galvez’s request for leave to file an election petition to challenge the validity of Mark King’s election to Parliament.
  
A previous application for leave for an election petition to challenge King, by Galvez’s sister, Yolanda Schakron, recently failed, because the Chief Justice ruled that Supreme Court Justice Oswell Legall had already decided the matter that was being raised again before him. He pointed out that the Legall ruling had not been upset by an appeal.
  
Shakron had challenged the validity of the Lake I election on the grounds that returning officer Noreen Fairweather had no right to refuse her application on the basis of her dual citizenship. Shoman, who also acted as Schakron’s attorney, had argued in court that the matter is solely the purview of an election judge, but Legall disagreed. It was on this basis that Benjamin recently denied Schakron request’s to file an election petition.

Check out our other content

World Down Syndrome Day

Suicide on the rise!

Check out other tags:

International