Photo: Business Senator, Kevin Herrera
Business Senator says time has come for a discussion of “more draconian” indefinite SOEs
BELMOPAN, Tues. July 23, 2024
As the Senate debated a motion to extend the latest State of Emergency by two months, Business Senator, Hon. Kevin Herrera declared that perhaps the time has come for Belize to discuss the need to take a more draconian step and impose SOEs indefinitely as El Salvador has done.
In setting the context for the weighty recommendation that would follow, Senator Herrera noted that SOEs have been a tool that both administrations have used, and explained that he drew the Salvador comparison where murders have drastically reduced due to SOEs because, “it’s a very serious issue.” Herrera said, “It’s not something that I think we should take lightly. I mean, in one way, you are talking about preemptively take people who may commit a crime and putting them behind bars or take away their freedom.”
Herrera also described as a larger issue Government’s responsibility to protect law abiding citizens “as priority in this country” in the face of the culture of violence and intimidation that these gangs have created, which have “left a significant physical impact on this country.” Senator Herrera said the toll is not only physical, “there’s also a tremendous psychological effect. People live in fear.” He also pointed to the tremendous cost, particularly in the tourism sector where there is a loss of revenue because some may be turned away by the crime situation in Belize.
Addressing the responsibility of the state and how it has treated with crime in the past, Herrera said, “The state has a solemn duty to do what is necessary to make citizens feel safe. Obviously we don’t have the answers to reform these individuals. I think we have been down this road so many times in so many different forms, but it hasn’t worked. And we’re not talking about individuals here. That’s why they’re called gangs, because they are a form of organized crime.” He then declared, “But if they can’t live among us, then we have to look at options that will have them living apart, and I think that’s what we’re looking at.” He underscored another price he says we have paid as a society “for the freedom of these individuals to be out here trying to reform them, even as citizens of this country have lost their freedom to freely move around at times in certain areas. And I think we have given them many, many, many chances through many SOEs … and I believe the time has come for us to decide if we’re all in or not.” Herrera questioned whether two months is sufficient, if what we want to do is to “regain control of a bad situation,” or whether we are trying to “disrupt these activities on a temporary basis.” In wrapping up his contribution, Herrera explained that what he means when he asks if “we’re all in or not,” is for us to question whether it is possible to reform these individuals or not, while contemplating that citizens are living in fear. He concluded by questioning, if the SOEs are the answer, “How far do we go with it? … and so when I say we go all in, do we do this for the long haul or do we continue to do these couple months as we’re going along? But there’s one thing I think we should not forget in this. We should not forget that we have a real duty to protect citizen safety and security. I think we’ve done a horrible job at it, and we need to do better. And if that means we have to look at this more seriously, probably more draconian, then I believe we should have that conversation.”
Church Senator Alvin Benguche supported the motion and says he has no issue with SOEs, understanding that they target gang members involved in turf wars, and accepting that citizens do live in fear as a result of gang activity. However, he pointed out that he has an issue with the freedom of movement of law-abiding citizens being infringed in the SOE areas. Importantly though, Bishop Benguche cautioned that SOEs ought not to be the first option to curb crime, and that the Government needs a strategic plan to address crime.
For his part, National Trade Union Congress of Belize Senator, Glenfield Dennison cautioned the Government about constitutional provisions he says are already being violated under the SOE. Dennison stated, “What I’m asking is as it relates to the case law that obtains from countries who have, in fact, gone through litigation with states of emergencies, and have been made to pay significant awards of damages to persons whose liberty were infringed.” He outlined that the Constitution requires that within 7 days, everyone who is detained under an SOE is informed of the reason for their detention. Within 14 days, a publication must be made in the gazette along with the particularization of everyone’s infringement. Dennison pointed out that the blanket statement being used “that they have committed acts prejudicial to public safety and public order … more specifically, criminal gang activities” does not meet the requirement. Lastly, reported Dennison, the Constitution requires that within one month of a detention, each detainee must be taken before a tribunal to determine the validity of their detention, and the tribunal will then make the decision of whether the “continued detention of that person is warranted.”
In wrapping up the debate, Leader of Government Business, Hon. Eamon Courtenay corrected the record to point out that there is currently no curfew as part of the SOE. We note that there is only a curfew for minors. He then affirmed that, “It is because of the state of emergency in specific targeted areas – parts of Belize City and a part of the Cayo District – that the good people in those areas are now able to walk freely and enjoy the amenities of life, because the gangs in those areas have been taken off the street and incarcerated.” Courtenay insisted that the SOE was intelligence driven. “It was targeted, surgical, to disrupt a turf war that was taking place. The reduction in crime in those areas is proof that the intelligence was right, and the measure was appropriate and proportionate,” he affirmed.
Courtenay declined to address the concerns of Senator Dennison saying, “I will not enter into a legal debate with Senator Dennison with respect to Section 19 of the Constitution, and I will not be here advocating on behalf of the rights of any of those who are incarcerated …”