2 weeks ago, we took you to the Supreme Court where the PUP’s Former Secretary General Myrtle Palacio was suing Alfonso Noble over an article printed in the Guardian back in December of 2014.

Palacio is suing for libel due to that article, headlined “PUP Secretary General Endorses the Use of Witchcraft in Politicsâ€￾. Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin heard all the evidence in the case, including video evidence from the Defense which they say is justification for the “fair commentâ€￾ angle they took when they criticized Palacio. 

Palacio asserts that her character and her culture as respected member of the Garifuna community was maligned, Noble and the Guardian Newspaper’s attorney say that her interpretation is incorrect. A significant portion of the trial appeared to put obeah on trial, but today’s hearing was for the attorneys to examine the evidence presented.

It’s a hotly contested lawsuit and in the oral arguments, both Said Musa and Michael Young put their own spin on the case. When the 2 hour hearing was over we spoke with both sides. 

Here’s Palacio and her attorney explaining how they tried to convince the judge that the Guardian’s article was libelous:

Rt. Hon. Said Musa - SC, Attorney for the Claimant
"What you think people will think when you accuse somebody of being a witch, of practicing witch craft? The average Belizean would right away feel they want to do hard to somebody, you will practice witch craft on that person. And all she did was to say let a not report this to the creator as the caller wanted to do; which I would submit and I did submit has its own sinister implication. You will report somebody to god then you want god deal with that person and she is saying no, no just light a candle and burn the candle over his head. As she explained in her culture and in her religion, there is burning of candles in the Catholic Church, in the Methodist Church, in the Anglican Church and in the Garifuna culture there is the burning of candles. Now what is sinister and really to my mind damning about this whole article is that its right at the very bottom there is this cartoon; which if you look at that cartoon it is disparaging this good lady in the worse possible light."

Iris Myrtle Palacio - Claimant
"You can see the response to the Stirm situation. In fact I had to hold back and I am holding back and there are people not only the Garifuna, other people on Belize who are watching this case very much so because we are tired of the discrimination and racism."

Now, the context of the article was Nomination Day for the By-Election in Cayo North. Palacio appeared as a guest on the Positive Vibes Morning Show and she complained bitterly about the Returning Officer, Marcelo Windsor, publicly questioning his credibility as a fair elections officer. Today, the defence framed their submissions in that context, and outside of court, they explained the significance:

Michael Young - SC, Attorney for the Defendant
"They jumped up and said Mr. Noble and the Guardian have done such a great hurtful wrong. Well Mr. Noble never just jump up and write an article you know, there was the positive vibes programme with the words that she used and those words came after a barrage of attacks against the returning officer. The whole tape that was shown in court was just over 14 minutes and the previous 13 minutes was this attack which was articulated and led by the claimant. At the end and it produced this result that somebody call and say make we report ah to god; as if this man had done such a grieve sin. She said no, no, no she said burn the damn candle over ih head and look for his name to get his birthdate on the register of electors. This is what we have to do deh kind of people, what is that? That is glaring unclear and that is our case. The article was saying you ought not to mix religion and politics because look what happened in this case on this show on the 23rd of December 2014; imagine the Secretary General of the PUP."

Alfonso Noble - Defendant, Editor Guardian Newspaper
"There was this case that they are claiming that I was malicious in my reporting; I reported on a fact. There was a talk show in which certain statements were made. I did not fabricate anything; I did not make up a story about what she said. I understood what she said to mean something and I reported on that and there is absolutely no malice in that. This is at the time the Secretary General of the PUP, when you utter certain things you must be held accountable to what you say in high positions such as the Secretary General of a political party, there must be some level of responsibility in the manner in which you conduct yourself, in the manner in which you speak to the public."

But, if viewers tune into the Positive Vibes TV Show or the Wave Morning Show, you’d know this sort of ugly back and forth is an almost everyday experience. So, might this not be case where the PUP side “ketch feelingsâ€￾ for something that the two mass parties are known for? That’s what we asked, and here’s how they responded:

Michael Young - SC, Attorney for the Defendant
"All of this has to do in a sense with freedom of speech in a robust political community and that’s why in the end we said this is an overreaction. You attacked the returning officer, you did so with some very colourful language particularly at the end and then you jump up and say I am so hurt? No but it is a matter for the court."

Rt. Hon. Said Musa - SC, Attorney for the Claimant
"Now they try to rely on fair comment but the fact is as we argued the comment itself was the implication of the liable accusing her of endorsing witchcraft."

Daniel Ortiz
"Sir with all due respect to you and your client might a person not take away from this da normal PUP-UDP politics? It is common for listeners and viewers to look at the two morning circuits and see mudslinging from both sides across the air waves."

Rt. Hon. Said Musa - SC, Attorney for the Claimant
"Yes you get that on the radio and TV but this is now in black and white, an article in a newspaper and that newspaper clearly defamed and disparage this lady; ridiculed her, mocked her religion, mocked her culture, that’s liable, that’s what we are saying. This is not the usual banter, we've taken a lot of hits you know; I speak now as a politician but we don't sue for liable every time they attack us. No of course not but this was going as I called it an ad hominem attack on the person and character of this lady."

The Judge has reserved judgement to be delivered in a month’s time. We’ll be there to tell you about the ruling.