Dickie Bradley gives his objections on 9th Amendment

The proposed ninth amendment to sections sixty-nine and two of the constitution should go back to the House of Representatives in October following ninety days of public airing. This Wednesday night, the first round of consultations will take place in the nation’s media center. It begins at seven o’clock at the Holy Redeemer Parish Hall and is expected to be heated with arguments coming from both sides of the political divide.  Both government and the opposition are mobilizing for the event, which will test whether or not there is support for the proposal that many say will limit the court in its review of constitutional amendments.  The Bar Association, the P.U.P. and the Chamber of Commerce and independent attorneys have rejected the amendment so far. Attorney Richard Bradley says that it is absolutely not true that as it stands, the courts are not required to review the contents of claims to the constitution.

Richard “Dickie” Bradley, Attorney

Richard “Dickie” Bradley

“If the people who are saying man, dah weh dehn people di talk bout, it was always like this from 1981, the courts could not challenge the contents of any change to the constitution. We are proposing in our new section two is nothing new, we’re just stating this so it can be clearer. That is absolutely not so.  But this important point comes to the fore. If we now find out that our constitution is not supreme, oh my goodness, we mi think all di while dat we had wah—if the leaders of this country say that the lawyers … are telling them this document, this dah noh di supreme law yoh know. Parliament, they are supreme, they can make—if they are saying that, then they have a duty and a responsibility to hurry tek out whatever deh een yah dat makes us not have a constitution which is supreme.

The present government of Belize was elected in February, 2008. By April—February, yoh got march then April—by April they had already introduced and did the first reading to amend the constitution of Belize by April to include many things that are suspect and I’ll come to the many things shortly. But it also included these two; one was preventative detention. Two months afta dehn get eena office. It was never a manifesto pledge, it was never a discussion with the people that how we will solve the crime problem is that we will lock them up. We noh want hear bout no court or no procedure, we wah just lock dem up. That was never discussed man. The other one William, which now when you are looking back in hind sight it is good to be wise. The other one was that if petroleum or other minerals were found under your land, they can take away your land and give it to weh dehn call, contractors. That’s the word they used in the first draft. You can’t go dah di Supreme Court—dehn try dis already yoh know—you can’t go dah Supreme Court fi dat. But how dehn could tek my land and I noh wah get no compensation? They were denying access to the court two months after they got in office.”