_{Jeremy Enriquez – Redistricting Claimant}

BELIZE CITY, Thursday, March 6, 2025

Redistricting claimant, Jeremy Enriquez sought, through an application dated February 21, to have the Court of Appeal overturn the decision of High Court Justice Tawanda Hondora which denied the request for an interim injunction to stop the March 12 general elections. That decision denying the injunction was delivered on Tuesday, February 18. On March 3^, the Court of Appeal issued case management orders which would see the Attorney General (AG) and the Elections and Boundaries Commission file and serve affidavits by March 5. Written reply submissions would then be filed and served by the Applicant by March 11, 2025 – just one day before the general elections. After receiving all submissions, the Registrar would then fix a date for the hearing of the application during the March Session of the Court of Appeal which runs from March 11 to March 31.

_{Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay – Representing the Attorney General of Belize}

Those case management orders meant that the application would not be heard before the general elections. Bearing in mind the time constraints, Enriquez’ attorney, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, on the very same evening of March 3 had an application filed at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Belize’s apex court, asking for special leave to appeal Justice Hondora’s decision. On behalf of his client, he also requested that the case management orders of the Belize Court of Appeal be reversed. Alternatively, he asked the CCJ to hear and determine the appeal as a matter of urgency before the March 12 general elections, and also sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent (the AG) through its servants and/or agents from acting on the Prime Minister’s advice that the National Assembly be dissolved and a date for the general elections be appointed.

Setting out the grounds for an urgent intervention by the CCJ, Ramlogan explained that the case management orders by the Court of Appeal “are plainly wrong and unreasonable …” and that, “Unless the Caribbean Court of Justice intervenes, the Applicant’s application for urgent interim relief to prevent an unconstitutional and illegal general election from being held will be rendered academic and futile.” He also argued that there has been a disappointing chronology of events “in which the administration of justice has failed,” as Enriquez’ application has not been treated seriously and in a timely manner, especially bearing in mind that this is an issue of public importance raised “in the public interest.” Ramlogan affirmed that the case management of the application for urgent interim relief “now threatens to compromise his [Enriquez’] constitutional right of access to the court for a timely and efficacious remedy in breach of the right to protection of the law…” The substantive claim by Enriquez is that, if the general elections are held without a redistricting exercise being conducted first, his right to protection of the law and right to vote would have been breached due to the existing electoral boundaries being in breach of section 90 of the Constitution. The section requires that electoral divisions “have as nearly as may be an equal number of persons eligible to vote.” Further, Enriquez holds that “the right to vote was intended to be exercised in a lawful election that is conducted in accordance with the Constitution.”

Another argument set forth by Ramlogan was that the application for expedited hearing should have been dealt with at the March 3 hearing “instead of being case managed with directions that would in effect mean that the application for the expedited hearing would now be heard after March 12, 2025, as this would render the appeal futile.” Ramlogan compared the situation to an application for a death row inmate being heard after the date fixed for the execution.

Importantly, Ramlogan emphasized that if the substantive claim succeeds, there could be dire consequences, and every citizen “will have a potential claim against the state…” and the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the newly elected government would be in doubt.

Unfortunately for Enriquez, the CCJ found that the application for special leave to appeal was without merit, and it was denied without the need for a hearing.

Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay shared his opinion on Tuesday that this was Enriquez’ last hope to stop the elections. At the same time, he insisted that “there is a long and consistent line of cases in the Commonwealth that says, when a Prime Minister dissolves the National Assembly, it is time for the people to speak, and courts will not restrain the holding of elections. That is a political decision made by a prime minister in consultation with his advisors — it’s a political decision, and the courts are not going to interfere with it.” Courtenay also shared that Ramlogan did not provide any case “where any Commonwealth court has stopped an election after the House has been dissolved.”

In light of the CCJ’s decision, which paves the way for the election to take place, Enriquez is withdrawing his application for an expedited hearing. He has deemed that there is nothing urgent now in the appeal. Enriquez told Amandala on Wednesday that the CCJ order “was disappointing, but we are not defeated.” He cited the limited time they have had to pursue this case, and affirmed that he will continue his advocacy. Accepting that the election will proceed with malapportioned divisions, Enriquez said he will hold the government accountable straight through the next term to ensure redistricting happens before another general election. “The process has started; it has not ended,” he affirmed.

Ramlogan ordered to pay half the costs of the AG

Speaking on Tuesday of the possibility of the Claimant having to cover the legal costs of the government, Senior Counsel Courtenay explained that “as a general rule in public law and constitutional law cases, the state, if it wins, does not usually get costs unless the court is persuaded that the claimants acted wholly unreasonably, that they are persisting in circumstances where the law is obviously against them or the facts are against them and they are still taking up court time.” Courtenay revealed that at this time, he has no instructions from the Attorney General to seek costs. However, he pointed to the principle of wasted costs which he says, “focuses not on the client, but on the lawyer, and I think that that is something that needs to be looked at in this particular matter.”

We had already reported that Justice Hondora had asked Ramlogan to explain why wasted costs should not be awarded against him based on the handling and filing of affidavits and exhibits. According to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), “wasted costs” refer to improper, unreasonable or a negligent act or omission on the part of any legal practitioner. On today’s date, Justice Hondora issued his ruling on costs for the three applications for interim relief, requiring that Ramlogan pay wasted costs, representing half of the legal costs of the Attorney General. If costs are not agreed, the wasted costs will be taxed by the Registrar.

As it relates to the filing of the affidavits and exhibits, Justice Hondora noted that Ramlogan did not ensure it was done in accordance with the law, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and his own obligations to the court. The Judge wrote of Ramlogan’s response to the concerns raised by the court, “It is not a valid excuse that learned senior counsel left it to Mr. Enriquez to ensure the proper signing and authentication of legal documents and potentially the drafting of the contents of his (Mr. Enriquez’s) certificate of truth contained in the fixed date claim form. Learned senior counsel’s attempt to deflect responsibility for the duties that he personally owes Mr. Enriquez, and this court, holds no water.”

In his scathing rebuke of Ramlogan’s handling of the case, among other things, Justice Hondora said he ought to have employed candour and therefore should have informed the court of “competing or contrary holdings on a point of law known to him.”

In today’s ruling, Justice Hondora also made case management orders in relation to the substantive claim, and has also ordered that if the other two Claimants, Rudolph Noralez and Jessica Tulcey, do not assert their ongoing interest in the matter by March 14, they cannot continue in the proceedings.

An in-person case management conference is set for May 7, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

BPM faces additional setbacks in its redistricting claim

The members of the Belize Peace Movement (BPM), who are challenging the constitutionality of Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) which sets out the boundaries of the 31 electoral divisions, are themselves facing significant hurdles in their case. On February 12, Claimant Roody Wade in case 730 of 2024 (which was filed in November 2024) had written an affidavit asking for an expedited hearing of their case. Written submissions had been made on January 13, 2025, and since then, they had not heard back from the court regarding a date for the oral hearing. Such orders were made on February 20, and the oral submissions were set for March 4. However, the Claimants’ attorney, Sharon Pitts, had difficulties completing the pre-trial memorandum and trial bundle by the dates of February 26 and February 28 set out by the Court. According to Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, who also appears for the Attorney General in this case, they received the electronic record at 4:37 p.m. Monday and it was over 800 pages long.

While the latter is the version presented by the Government’s attorney, in a press release today, the BPM notes that their submissions were 50 pages long, whereas the Government’s was over 800 pages long. They wrote, “We were unfortunately tasked by the court to make 4 copies of the bundle, collate and serve them to the court and to the two government litigants at our own expense. We believe that this was unfair since it is the government that has the ready financial resources to complete such an oppressive task. But despite limited resources, we complied with the court’s order to reproduce and serve over 3,200 pages, completing this requirement on March 5, 2025.”

Courtenay said that when Pitts was asked what was the urgency of hearing the matter, she responded that the elections are upon us. However, he said it was highlighted that the Claimants in this case filed no application for an injunction to stop the general elections from happening. “It’s just pure legal arguments,” said Courtenay. He said that he expected to receive the hard copy of the record later in the week, and that when they do, the Judge will have to make a determination about urgency. In this regard, the BPM in its release today states that to suggest that the matter could be addressed after the elections ignores their primary request, that being a declaration of the voters list as unconstitutional due to the severe malapportionment of electoral divisions. They affirm nonetheless that they remain committed to seeking justice, and will return to court when the proceedings resume.