Case Dismissed! High Court Says General Elections are a Go

The March twelfth general election will proceed as planned, free from litigation in the High Court.  Earlier today, Justice Tawanda Hondora handed down a thirty-nine-page decision dismissing a claim brought by three claimants, following a marathon hearing last Wednesday.  Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan argued on behalf of his clients: Jeremy Enriquez, Rudolph Norales, and Jessica Tulcey.  They put forward that the electoral boundaries in Schedule I of the Representation of the People Act are unconstitutional. They believe that if the elections on March twelfth, 2025, use these boundaries, their voting rights and legal protections will be violated. They also feel they have a legitimate expectation that the boundaries would be redrawn before the next general elections.  The claim was filed against the Attorney General, the Speaker of the House, and the Chair of the Elections and Boundaries Commission. The defendants were represented by the law firms Courtenay Coye and Marine Parade Chambers. This evening, we caught up with Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay to hear his initial thoughts on the judgment.

 

Eamon Courtenay, Attorney-at-law

“I am very pleased for the attorney general who we represented in successfully resisting the claim brought by Mr. Enriquez.  As you know, the attempt was to, in effect, stop the elections which have been now scheduled for the twelfth of March 2025.  I think that the judge listened very carefully to the parties, read tons of submissions that were filed by the parties and came to the right decision.  Just by way of reminder, this happened four years ago, four years plus, when the Belize Peace Movement tried to stop the elections in 2020 and Madame Justice Arana, as she then was, I believe she may have been the Acting Chief Justice at the time, refused the application.  So, it is history repeating itself. I think there are a few things.  The first is that there is no case that we have found and none was presented to the court where a court has ever intervened and stopped an election.  Secondly, there was a number of cases from the Caribbean that we put before the judge that shows that once parliament has been dissolved that the elections must continue and any difference, any issue you have is taken up after the election.  What is surprising to me is that Mr. Ramlogan who represented Mr. Enriquez had written a document to the court saying that if parliament is dissolved, the court has no jurisdiction.  Yet, when the matter was called up before the judge, he changed that document and put another one and deleted that paragraph.  So I had to point out to the judge that Mr. Ramlogan was not being frank with the court because he knows what the law is and we listened to him for four long, painful hours go on and on without admitting to the court that the court had no jurisdiction.  And so, we submitted to the court, relying on decided cases that once parliament is dissolved, the case must continue and you take it up afterwards.”