_{Jeremy Enriquez – Redistricting Claimant}

BELIZE CITY, Fri. Apr. 25, 2025

If you search Belize’s news archives for the JLSC, that is, the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, you will only find a few links to related references. There are a few dated July 2012, when Lord Ashcroft and others from his “Alliance” filed a complaint against sitting Court of Appeal judge, Justice Samuel Lungole Awich in an effort to get the JLSC to investigate him for misbehaviour or inability to perform his functions, and to determine if there was a prima facie case for his removal to be submitted for determination by the Belize Advisory Council. Under the Constitution of Belize, the JLSC is the entity authorized to give advice to the Governor General on the appointment of justices of the High Court with the concurrence of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Judges of the High Court are appointed to serve in that capacity until they reach the age of sixty-five.

While the JLSC is mandated to advise on judges’ appointments, it is also the body authorized to consider complaints made against those persons. As Chief Justice, Madame Louise Esther Blenman serves as the chairperson of the JLSC. She and the other members of the Commission are now being called upon to consider a complaint by redistricting claimant, Jeremy Enriquez against a sitting High Court judge. Enriquez submitted his complaint of misconduct against Justice Tawanda Hondora on Wednesday, April 23; and today, he issued a release describing his complaint as an extraordinary step. In an interview with Amandala, Enriquez acknowledged that “it was not an easy decision to make, but it has to be made.” He stated in his release, “The troubling facts before us suggest that entrenched forces within our governance structure may have conspired to undermine and thwart our legitimate and peaceful quest for electoral justice for the people of Belize.”

_{Anand Ramlogan, SC – Representing Jeremy Enriquez}

Enriquez, who is represented by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, lays out his complaint in a 19-page letter with supporting documentation to the Chief Justice. The complaint is focused on the hearing on February 12 of the application for an injunction to stop the March 12 general elections. Just two days prior, Enriquez had filed his fixed date claim, citing a violation of his rights were there to be another general election without a redistricting exercise taking place first. Enriquez, in his complaint, details what his attorney’s junior associates in Trinidad say they overheard during a recess in the session, and provides an unofficial recording on cell phone of a private conversation Justice Hondora was having with two other persons, presumably judges. Also submitted in the complaint is a transcript of the unofficial recording. Ramlogan himself shared what he was told not long after the session resumed. He stated, “Apparently, my lord, during the break, my juniors have informed me — they are based in Trinidad, I am based in Fort Lauderdale and during the break, I am advised, my lord, that unfortunately, your microphone was on. They have no audience to the court; they couldn’t contact me because I went to have my breakfast, and my lord, unfortunately, you are recorded as being overheard as saying that you had made up your mind to dismiss this application already.” The Judge responded simply, “Whatever information you’ve been told is patently incorrect.”

We note that the unofficial recording does not capture the judge actually stating that he had already decided to dismiss the application and was just going through the motions, nor that he was going to clamp down on Ramlogan and teach them a lesson, but it does capture him discussing one of the cases that Ramlogan was citing in support of his arguments. He also discussed another judge’s previous decision for an application for an injunction.

Enriquez highlights that the Judge’s decision on the application for an injunction (which was denied) was based primarily on his “failure to comply with the procedural requirements for swearing and commissioning my affidavits.” The Judge ruled that Enriquez’ affidavit evidence was inadmissible on that basis, and Enriquez says the Judge therefore “… did not confront and address the real issues in my case.”

Enriquez is arguing that the Judge was biased and prejudged the matter, and therefore, he did not receive a fair hearing. He is calling for Justice Hondora to be removed from the case and from the other redistricting matter over which he is also presiding.

The matter brings into focus whether judges can discuss ongoing cases with other judges. Enriquez points to a Code of Judicial Conduct and Etiquette for judges, dated March 31, 2003, which reads at one section: “In performing judicial duties, a judge shall, within the judge’s own court, be independent of judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.” We’ve gotten differing opinions from attorneys on the matter, and read the New York Times’ article of May 19, 2015, titled, “Faced With Legal Puzzles, Judges Often Turn to Fellow Jurists”. The article refers to the “jurist-to-jurist lifeline” used by judges as a resource “when they are puzzled by legal questions or other issues …” Other sources point to limitations and judicial ethics considerations in this “lifeline”, including that the judge must retain decision-making power, free from any coercion or outside interference. In the end, however, it will be left up to the JLSC to decide on the weighty matter. The JLSC has the authority to regulate its own procedures.

The other members of the JLSC are the chairman of the Public Services Commission, the Solicitor General and the President of the Bar Association of Belize. Those positions are currently held by Diana Murillo Price, Elisa Montalvo and William A. Lindo, respectively. The decisions of the Commission are by majority, and in any case where the votes are equally divided, the Chairperson shall have a casting vote in addition to their original vote. Notably, in the case of the Solicitor General, Enriquez is asking for her to recuse herself due to a conflict of interest, given that the Attorney General is the defendant in his claim.