Earlier today, businessman and recording artist Aaron Wilson stopped by our office to share his side of an incident that took place inside the Ladyville Police Station over the extended weekend that resulted in him being detained for over twenty hours. As we initially reported, Wilson’s employee, a deliveryman, was taken into custody for a motorcycle offense. When Wilson showed up at the station sometime later to present the documents for the motorbike, an exchange of words ensued between him and a female officer. That led to Wilson being detained and placed inside a holding cell at the precinct, before being released without charge twenty-two hours later. Here’s his story.
Aaron Wilson
Aaron Wilson, Detained by Police
“When I reach Ladyville now, nobody tell me my workman released. Soh I reach Ladyville and I gaan da di station because I expect that, you know what, I bring my documents here, release di man. But because Mr. Barrow trusted what I mi di tell ahn, Mr. Barrow gaan head and released di man. And when I reach station, da like di whole station bex wid me because I call dehn boss and I jump dehn and dehn feel like dehn da nobody now and dehn done bex wid me from I reach station because my workman mi done tell me dat di W seh ih wah charge me because I call and cuss ahn dats why she heng up di phone. I‘m like neva bro, dat neva happen. I am upset that she heng up di phone because I di tell ahn dat I di bring di documents and she noh got time fi hear dat or wait fi mek I reach from Cayo to ya. So when I reach, she done deh eena my face. Di minute I walk eena di station, she jump out fi she seat and staat seh dat she wahn charge me and I tell ahn fi what. I cohn tell unu dat unu du wrong.”
As part of the Police Department’s modernization and upgrade from the budget, Commissioner Williams explained that one of the areas that will also be enhanced has to do with securing and gathering evidence and testing, as well as being able to conduct DNA-testing.
Chester Williams, Commissioner of Police
“We’ll be looking at expanding our camera surveillance system. We’re looking at the fingerprint system. So everything that has to do with technology to enhance policing is what we’re going to do. The minister spoke about the issue of DNA, the field DNA testing. That’s a very important thing for us, likewise especially in this area. If we have a sample, for example, where we can do the field DNA testing and it proves positive, then we can then send it, the sample, to the lab to get that official result. That way it’s going to eliminate the cost to send something to the DNA lab that may not come back with a match. So we’ll only be able to send those that we believe will have that match when the time comes. There’s a lot from information technology-wise that the ministry is pushing. All in a view to ensure that we can enhance the police department we, do appreciate the importance of the service that we provide to the Belizean people, and we want to make sure we do so in the most professional and expedient manner as we possibly can.”
Over the weekend, Crown Counsel Riis Cattouse called out the Belize Police Department for “flagrant human rights violation”. Crown Counsel Cattouse wrote to the Commissioner of Police following the detention of Aaron Wilson at the Ladyville Police Station. According to the letter, Wilson visited the police station to inquire about one of his employees who was detained on a traffic charge. Cattouse noted that Wilson was detained while at the police station for alleged boisterous behavior. The letter further notes that Wilson was detained for twenty hours, which Cattouse referred to as a breach of Wilson’s human right. A video surfaced, following the detention that showed Wilson and a female police officer engaged in a back and forth. In the video the officer informed Wilson that he was being detained for disrespecting a police officer. ComPol Williams was asked about the letter and the video today.
Chester Williams
Chester Williams, Commissioner of Police
“I watched the video and the night when Mr. Wilson was released from police custody on bail he reached out to me and sent me the video footage. After viewing them I responded to him and said what I saw does not amount to boisterous behavior. I also advised him to go to the Racoon Street police station to make a report to PSB and that I would have the matter addressed by PSB. I again contacted him yesterday and spoke at length and he said he was going to PSB to make the complaint. I have not checked with PSB if he did go in. You all would know I have a very though stance when it comes to police abuse. And, that is the reason why I do not agree with the statement of the crown council from the DPP office. I think that his statement that he gave to the media, while I agree with some aspects of it, I think it was more defamatory to the police and try to paint the police in such a way that is not true. As members of the media you can say without a doubt that over the years you have seen a tremendous dec4rease in police abuse across the country and that is because of the stance that myself and the minister have taken and even the Human Rights Commission, because he copied the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Commission can also attest to the fact that the police department has done a lot with them to try and sensitize the police in terms of human right norms and get the police to adhere to these norms and we have gone at length to make sure we train our officers in the different human rights norms. So for Mr. Cattouse to have said that everyday police are violating the rights of people in this country, that is not true. That is a statement that is far from the truth, and I think he should retract that aspect of his statement and with that I would have no issue in terms of what he has wrote, because the truth is as a law enforcement organization there is a need to ensure we do our jobs in a way that does not infringe the rights of people.”
Should a person applying for a gun license undergo a psychiatric evaluation before receiving approval? That’s one of the questions that reporters asked Commissioner of Police Chester Williams today. He is no longer the authority that issues gun licenses, that responsibility has been transferred to an entire board. But he says when it was his responsibility many gun license were revoked following complaints of misuse and violence. ComPol Williams says he is of the view that if a gun license holder acts irresponsibly that person’s soundness to carry a firearm should be brought into question.
Chester Williams, Commissioner of Police
“I would agree with that and I listened to the statement issued by the mental health organization and I have to agree with them. When I was the licensing authority if it is that we have any complaint of a license firearm holder, being involved in any domestic issue or act of violence what I would normally direct the police to do is to retrieve the firearm from that license holder. We would keep the weapon and then my office would then write the license holder and ask him or her to give reasons why in light of the allegation his or her license should not be revoked. And, I can tell you that we revoked many license. There are some instance where persons are charged with crime of violence or domestic issues and then the complainant or victim would withdrew the matter against them. we would still proceed in writing them letter and ask them to show cause why in light of the allegations their license should not be revoked, and we did many revocations on that basis.”
Reporter
“What is your opinion on a red flag law?”
Chester Williams
“That is certainly good, but again, I wouldn’t want to make it a red flag, but if you do nonsense, it must be taken it way.”
The issue of occupational safety and health has been a concern for many in the private and public sectors. On several occasions, we have reported on persons being injured or losing their lives while on the job. The National Trade Union Congress of Belize has long been clamoring for the passage of the OSH Bill. Earlier today, Cabinet issued a release announcing that it has approved workplace safety measures through OSH Bill amendments. The move draws attention to the Ministry of Labor’s efforts to prioritize the welfare and safety of the workforce. In November and December of last year, various consultations and sensitization meetings were held with a range of stakeholders in partnership with the OSH working group. At the end of January, the proposed amendments were submitted to Cabinet and were later approved. The Attorney General’s Ministry is in the process of revising the bill before it is presented to the House of Representatives.
The Senate Special Select Committee continues to investigate the Portico Definitive Agreement. Since its establishment, a total of four witnesses have been called to testify before the committee, including two who were called to answer questions today. The committee’s focus in this session was on government land transactions that occurred between October and November 2020, only months before the general elections. Sean Duncan, the Director of NYNE Enterprises, and his business partner David Morales are among the individuals who purchased land from the government at the time for what the committee considers to be below market value. Duncan was summoned to testify before the committee. Former Lands Commissioner, Wilbert Vallejos was also called to testify. News Five’s Paul Lopez reports.
Paul Lopez, Reporting
The Senate Special Select Committee convened for yet another session inside the National Assembly. The first witness to go before the committee was Sean Duncan, the Director of NYNE Enterprises Limited. He appeared with his attorney, Andrew Bennett. Duncan and his business partner, David Morales, purchased two, fifty-acre parcels of land from the Government of Belize in October 2020. Those land transactions were among a total of sixteen properties sold off around the same time. The relevance of the sales to the agreement is that the parcels are located in the vicinity of the project’s proposed site.
Sean Duncan
Sean Duncan, Director, NYNE Enterprises Limited
“My involvement in whatever land transaction this is was fairly technical. I have a partner that deals with all of the commercial aspect of it, transaction. From my perspective I am not sure of the relevance of me being here, but I am here to comply with whatever questions you ask me. I am here because I respect this process and on the advice of my counsel.”
In his opening statement, Duncan sought to establish that his business partner David Morales oversaw most of the land transaction process. Duncan says he only signed off on papers authorizing NYNE Enterprises to make the purchase.
Kevin Herrera
Kevin Herrera, Senator
“Our records are showing that there are two properties of fifty acres each, I think one I for fifty point one and the other is around the same size, can you confirm?”
Sean Duncan
“That is correct.”
Kevin Herrera
“And you paid, five thousand two hundred dollars each for those properties, our records are showing?”
Sean Duncan
“That is the reason we wanted disclosure because we could have reviewed the documents. I really cant remember those figures or anything like that.”
Janelle Chanona, the chair of the Senate Special Select Committee, questioned Duncan on the expedited manner at which NYNE Enterprises’ land applications were processed. And, when Senator Bevin Cal questioned Duncan on Morales’ involvement in the land transaction process, Duncan continued to somewhat throw his business partner under the bus.
Janelle Chanona
Janelle Chanona, Chairpersons, Senate Committee
“We have documentation here saying you applied the seventh of October it was received the thirteenth of October and then you get approval the twentieth of October. When you got the notice from your business partner that you got the investment secured all within less than a month.”
Sean Duncan
“Something’s work faster than others I guess, from his perspective. But remember, I did not deal with that aspect.”
Bevinton Cal
Bevinton Cal, Senator
“So, David Morales was the one who did all the paper work, went to the proposed land site, inspected it, applied for it; all you did was just sign?”
Sean Duncan
“Yes he is the managing director; he did whatever he did with the transaction. He brought a good opportunity I signed over, because I don’t think you can ever go wrong with lands.”
The second witness to go before the committee today was former Lands Commissioner, Wilbert Vallejos. He served as the lands commissioner for eleven years and appeared today with his attorney, Dean Barrow, who wasted no time stating that his client will not answer questions deemed irrelevant.
Dean Barrow
Dean Barrow, Attorney-At-Law
“I believe that you would have to agree with me that questions about land transfers or land sales in an area that is within two miles of the locus, site of the Portico cruise project, those questions has nothing to do with the end on which you have embarked. You can put any question you wish, but I am suggesting to you that you are not entitled to put questions that fall outside the ambit of your terms of reference. You are not entitled.”
Thereafter, every question that senators put to the former lands commissioner was met with an objection of irrelevance.
Wilbert Vallejos, Former Lands Commissioner
“Senator Herrera your question keeps coming about land. I am sure you heard Mr. Barrow, the terms of reference is specific about the Portico Definitive Agreement which I don’t know anything.”
Kevin Herrera,
“For me, there is relevance. You may determine otherwise but for us there is certainly a relationship so we really wanted to get an understanding of what took place that faithful day on November fourth but it seems you don’t intend to be helpful to the committee which I think is sad. The Belizean public certainly deserves a lot better than that, you being commissioner for so much years, being paid by the Belizean tax payers. So I think it is a very sad day in the country that you decided you won’t help or assist the committee in this investigation.”
It was then determined that Vallejos would be of no help to the committee during today’s session. He requested that questions be sent to him in writing and that a determination be made on whether the committee will request his presence at a later date. Former Minister of Lands, Hugo Patt was also scheduled to testify before the committee today. But due to time constraints, his testimony has been rescheduled. Paul Lopez for News Five.
A study done by UNICEF and the Statistical Institute of Belize five years ago revealed that only twenty-four percent of Belize’s children have the support of their fathers as they grow up. The study shows that a mother’s presence is not guaranteed as well, with only sixty-eight percent caring for their children in their first year of life. Established in 1998, the Families and Children Act provides a legal framework for advancing the rights of children, with their best interest as its main priority. From its inception, a man has been required to maintain the children of any of his children, under certain circumstances. That portion of the act is not as commonly known as the part that mandates a man to maintain his own children. But, it became the center of a heated debate inside the Senate on Thursday. The questions everyone now asking are, should grandparents be required, by law, to maintain their grandchildren in the absence of the biological parents, or should this section of the act be repealed and replaced? News Five’s Paul Lopez reports.
Paul Lopez, Reporting
On Thursday, members of the Senate debated a controversial amendment to the Families and Children Act.
Michael Peyrefitte
Michael Peyrefitte, Lead U.D.P. Senator
“The biological father or the biological parents of a child under no circumstance should be relieved of the responsibility of maintaining their children and putting it on the shoulders of someone else.”
The legislative amendment was encouraged by a High Court ruling back in September, 2023. The court ruled that Section 48, Subsection 1 of the Families and Children Act was discriminatory.
Magali Marin-Young
Magali Marin-Young, SC, Attorney-at-law (File: September 7th, 2023)
“That section is discriminatory because it imposes a liability on a man to maintain not only his children, but also to maintain the children of his wife who are living with him at the time, whether are those children are his biologically or not.”
With the High Court ruling in favor of the unconstitutionality of that sub section, an amendment was necessary to reflect the judgment. But, a section that may not be common knowledge also exists under section forty-eight of the act. Section (b) states that every man is required to maintain his own child and the children of any child of his.
Dolores Balderamos-Garcia
Dolores Balderamos-Garcia, Minister of Human Development
“The point of the matter is that the law is there, the Families and Children Act in order to ensure that the child is maintained. That is the first and foremost, responsibility that the act is putting on people, adults, when you are in a family situation. You could adopt a child, fostering a child and that child becomes what you call a child of the family.”
Dolores Balderamos-Garcia, the Minister of Human Development, explained that the obligations to a child falls on the either the paternal or maternal grandfather under special circumstances.
Dolores Balderamos-Garcia
“But here is the thing that was mentioned, why would you place responsibility on a grandparent? We are not saying that elderly people should be minding picni, but if you read the thing carefully, and that is why I say, some of them just like to argue, if you read the thing carefully it is saying that you look at the responsibility only where the biological parent, mother or father, they cannot be located, they are ill or they are able to maintain themselves.”
Notwithstanding the fact that this has been enshrined in the laws of Belize for many years, Michael Peyrefitte, the Lead U.D.P. Senator, argued on Thursday that parliament has an opportunity to make certain changes.
Michael Peyrefitte
“The court is the court and if the court has made a decision, if they interpret the law in such a way as it has written and it comes with a result that we do not accept or like. With all due respect to the court, we are parliament and they can make a decision in the High Court, but we in Parliament, we make the law. This is an opportunity, Madam President to make a law that is sustainable to people and makes sense.”
Paul Lopez
“Would Cabinet consider changing this approach if there is a great deal of public concern that warrants such?”
Dolores Balderamos- Garcia
“I would not say so, we have rich discussion in Cabinet about the social issues of our country and we have many people, all I would say, who are very concerned about our social issues. But I wouldn’t say we should prolong the conversation. I say and I repeat the best interest of children has to come first.”
And, concerns did not only come from Senator Peyrefitte. Other senators raised issues of unfairness.
Kevin Herrera
Kevin Herrera, Business Senator
“I know there seems to be an effort to secure the wellbeing of children and I think that is a noble effort. But I think in the instance in the grandparent where it becomes mandatory where their children are unable to, whether through lose lifestyle practices; I think it is extremely unfair.”
Elena Smith
Elena Smith, NTUCB Senator
“I look at for example my own father who passed away a year or so ago. He was ninety-two. So just imagine my brother had children he didn’t take care of, my grandfather who was ninety-two, based on this law, this was the law back then, could have been held accountable for any child my brother didn’t take care of. So, how then could my poor father, the grandfather of these children, not working anymore, being ninety, ninety-one, ninety-two take care of these children.”
Inside the National Assembly chamber, senators debated amendments to the Criminal Code and Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The proposed amendments seek to increase jail time for individuals who interfere with the work of law enforcement officers. Lead U.D.P. Senator, Michael Peyrefitte, raised concerns over the definitions of certain offenses outlined in the legislation, such as indecent words and behavior. NGO Senator Janelle Chanona also weighed in on the proposed amendment. These contributions prompted a response from Senator Eamon Courtenay. Here is how that discussion played out.
Michael Peyrefitte, U.D.P. Senator
“I have great issue with the summary jurisdiction amendment. If you read it carefully madam president, what this is saying pretty much is that I don’t even have to threaten a public officer. I don’t even have to threaten a peace officer, all that peace officer has to do is determine that what I say in my own yard, amongst my own friends, drinking rum, that I can go jail for that. That is what I find completely and utterly unacceptable. It says, any person who uses, I am reading from the news section four (a), any person who uses any threatening, abusive, profane, obscene, and this is where you really lose me, indecent, because who defines indecent. What might be indecent to you might not be indecent to me, especially if I am in my home, if I am in my yard.”
Janelle Chanona
Janelle Chanona, NGO Senator
“We fully support the direction of this bill, but calls out that I don’t know if this is the open and shut to it. And I know we have some other pieces of legislation in the works. We would like to signal that sexual harassment on a whole currently should definitely be treated with the seriousness it deserves. As stated earlier, it is also critically important to define what is meant by terms. Because, what I might consider sexual harassment and indecent others may not consider indecent and what is culturally tolerated, if not encouraged behavior is so intrinsic sometimes we lose sight of what that is and that becomes blurred.”
Eamon Courtenay
Eamon Courtenay, Lead Government Senator
“What Senator Peyrefitte described, drinking and having a barbeque with his friends, behaving the way he usually behave, he will be guilty of an offense today. Let us look at what the bill proposes, we are going to repeal the provision I just read. Now recall what I read; the law as it stand today does not have any categories. Anybody who does these things and anybody who hears it anywhere is an offense. There are now these limiting words, if you do it in the hearing of a person acting as a judicial officer, legal officer and peace officer. Not a police officer walking down the road. He has to be performing his duties and this happens, then an offense is committed.”
An amendment to the Families and Children Act, stemming from a recent High Court ruling, seeks to mandate that a grandfather care for his grandchildren if the father of that child neglects his responsibility. The proposed amendment caused a great deal of concerns and questions among senators. Several parliamentarians referred to the proposed amendment as unfair. Here is how that debate played out.
Eamon Courtenay, Lead Government Senator
“Respect of the grandchild, it is only where the father or mother of the child is ill cannot be located or are unable to maintain themselves. So, a father must maintain his child. With respect to the grandchildren, that obligation rest on the mother and father to maintain that child, however if that mother or father is ill, cannot be located, or unable to maintain themselves then it is the grandfather obligation to maintain is imposed. This comes out of a decision of the Supreme Court. And so the law is being clarified that the obligation of the grandfather is not forever and always it is only if the parent cannot maintain the child in these circumstances.”
Michael Peyrefitte
Michael Peyrefitte, Lead U.D.P. Senator
“I according to this, I have a child and no matter how hard some parents try, sometimes your children don’t turn out they way they should turn out. So now me, I am eighty-five now and I can only run five miles now as opposed to the ten I run today. I am receiving a pension and small social security and my son who is not able to maintain himself, he has three four children that he is not able to maintain, that falls on me, as an elderly grandfather with limited means? You get to same problem. How can you expect people to take on the responsibilities of another human being? The great Dean Lindo once coined a phrase, if you dead deh nuh wah bury me.”
Janelle Chanona
Janelle Chanona, NGO Senator
“When you get into the issue of fairness, to segue from Senator Herrera’s comments, then it also raises a dynamic well for the state and the tax payer, is it “fair” that children are born to the mercy of the world, abandoned by everybody and then the tax payer has to meet the needs of those children? I have stood in this honorable house before and said we don’t talk about sex and it is a national fact that men and women are having sex and having children and it is costing us in multiple ways. We spoke about keeping children in schools. The trauma of some of these experiences, these homes these children are coming from because they are born into relationships to keep financial ties to a man, men who has thirty children, forty-five children.”
The Government of Belize is changing the mandatory school age from fourteen to sixteen-years old. An amendment to the Education Rules was passed in the House of Representatives and debated in the Senate this morning. The primary objective of the change is to decrease the nation’s school dropout rate and increase enrollment in primary and high school. The amendment was supported by the Senate, but some senators had reservations about its implementation.
Jamal Swaso
Jamal Swaso, U.D.P. Senator
“These amendments from our side, we welcome it because as a developing nation these changes are needed if you want to build a great foundation for our nation. We need to increase the captured audience that we can use through the education system to get them into school. I would like the government to consider several things, before we move forward with this great effort. Has the government taken into consideration the additional resources needed to be effective and capture these students we now have? We have to take into consideration we do not have enough schools, dilapidated schools, we do not have sufficient teachers, we need more psychosocial support for these students who will be in these classrooms.”
Elena Smith
Elena Smith, NTUCB Senator
“We believe that moving the age from fourteen to sixteen is good for the country because we are looking at ensuring that more of our students and population has a certain level of education and can function in our society. And that is a good thing. However, these things do come with its setbacks. As a teacher of thirty-eight years I understand we can see where students who remain in our primary school system for longer than they should so if we had the primary school age will be fourteen, we do have a few students who are older than fourteen in the primary school students. These are students who are not particularly academically inclined.”
Bevinton Cal
Bevinton Cal, P.U.P. Senator
“I listened to Senator Swaso earlier and his comments. He made some valid comments but it also makes me wonder as a young person where he is at, because him and I are from the south and just at his backyard, if he would do his research before coming here, on the last budget we approved moneys for the education uplifment program or what we refer to as free education. In his backyard at the Delille Academy, that program has enrolled. In his backyard again, George Town Technical High, that free education is also rolling. At the ITVET, just in November the Prime Minister announced that they will be investing one point three million dollars at the ITVET in Stann Creek.”
