_{Sample ballot paper showing the colour red assigned to three candidates in one division}

BELIZE CITY, Thurs. Feb. 27, 2025

What’s in a colour? For Moses “Shyne” Barrow, especially in the face of a looming election, the colour red embodies the very essence of his leadership of the United Democratic Party (UDP), and he says he intends to take the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to court, if needs be, for his 25 candidates alone to get the color assigned. The Commission is the body authorized to designate party colours that end up alongside each candidate’s name on the ballot paper. Rule 15(4) of the Election Rules, Third Schedule of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), gives the Commission the power “after consulting the political parties contesting the election … [to] if it thinks fit, allocate different colours or symbols to different parties …” Its decision on the colours and symbols shall be published in the Gazette, not less than seven days before any election.

Both Tracy Panton and Barrow assert that they are the rightful leaders of the UDP and are both claiming the red. On February 18 there was a third meeting of the Commission to discuss the claim to the colour, and a preliminary vote was taken. By a vote of 4 to 1, it was decided that both factions claiming the color red would get to use it, and they would have to write the commission indicating a differentiating symbol to go along with the colour. There was push back about this from the Barrow camp, and it has since been revealed that at a meeting on February 25 – a day after nominations, the Commission met and took its final vote from among three options. Again, the majority, four of the five commissioners, voted that all 41 candidates running under the UDP banner would get to use the colour red. Therefore, Barrow’s 25 candidates, Panton’s 15, and even Anthony “Boots” Martinez, would all get the red beside their name. Of the two commissioners representing the Opposition on the Commission, one supports Barrow while the other supports Panton. In both instances, the Panton supporter has voted in consonance with the other three members appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.

_{Oscar Sabido Puga – Chairman, Elections and Boundaries Commission}

Today, Commission Chairman, attorney Oscar Sabido Puga explained that they have followed the law in arriving at their decision. Sabido shared that both sides were given an opportunity to have input, but neither side would budge. When they got to the point of making a final decision, Sabido says neither side had presented a differentiating symbol. As such, they took a vote on three options: 1. Assigning red to all 41 applicants under the UDP banner; 2. Assigning red to only the 25 candidates listed by Barrow; and 3. Assigning red only to Panton’s 15 candidates.

Asked about why the Commission did not choose to make an executive decision to assign the colour to only one side so as to eliminate possible confusion, he responded, “There was this very severe antagonism by one side against the other … they insisted on one retaining the colour for themselves to the exclusion of the other and vice versa … and they wouldn’t budge.” In a release on its decision, the Commission cited the position of the two factions that they are the legitimate UDP, and also that the legal dispute of who is the rightful leader of the party remains unresolved and is set for trial until March 31. Additionally, the Commission noted that the High Court has not granted any order restraining Panton from holding herself out as the UDP leader “or from using related UDP items including the party’s name and symbols …” The Commission concluded by affirming that it has taken this approach “to maintain neutrality, absolute even-handedness and uphold electoral integrity.” Panton for her part has said the voters will not confuse who they wish to vote for as they know the names of their preferred candidates.

For his part, in a letter to the Chief Elections Officer, Josephine Tamai, on February 23, Barrow affirmed that there is only one UDP and that the UDP Constitution “explicitly prohibits ‘factionalism’ in Article 5(5)(e).” He then declared that the Commission’s reference to factions of the UDP is “patently false” because the former members of the UDP were expelled. He noted too that when High Court Justice Tawanda Hondora made a decision about the control of the party headquarters, he only recognized one Central Executive. Barrow wrote, “This is our Democracy, not a political volley for the Elections & Boundaries Commissioners appointed by the pup [sic] Prime Minister to make a mockery of free and fair elections by creating havoc at the ballot by assigning the color red to any entity other than the Court recognized UDP.”

In his letter, Barrow had also informed, “The UDP will take immediate court action if the Election & Boundaries assigns traditional UDP red or any color remotely close to any Candidate that is not on the list of official UDP candidates.” In an attorney letter on Barrow’s behalf to Sabido on February 25, John Nembhard wrote that if the Commission recognizes there are factions of the UDP, it would be “tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of the UDP and by extension, the elections.”

Today, Sabido confirmed that they have not received formal notice of any application for judicial review in this regard.