Earlier this week we told you the Barrow administration’s plans to make
the Venezuelan millions free money as it will be distributed to needy Belizeans
in the form of housing grants in time for Christmas. But as we have repeatedly
reported, the Belize Bank is still insisting that it has a rightful claim to
the ten million U.S. dollars and wants it back pronto.
That position was adopted in court again today as this morning the bank’s
attorneys Vincent Nelson and Andrew Marshallek appeared before the Court of
Appeal ready to argue against the finding of Chief Justice Abdualai Conteh’s
earlier ruling that the Banks and Financial Institutions Appeal Board was properly
appointed. Viewers will recall that after that decision was handed down the
appeal board held its preliminary hearings and subsequently ordered the bank
to deposit the money into the government’s account. If their challenge
against that decision is successful, it would effectively overturn the board’s
decisions, specifically, the repayment of the money.
It’s a hot button issue and lead attorney Vincent Nelson was ready to
tango but before he could begin to present his case, the Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance’s Attorney Lois Young, took the floor and asked the
court to grant an adjournment of the case until next year. Young maintained
that she had been under the assumption that the appeal would be heard at the
first sitting in 2009 and was therefore surprised to learn that it had in fact
been scheduled for today.
The application did not appear to sit well with the justices and His Lordship
Boyd Carey went so far as to tell young that regardless of how the date had
been set, he and his brother judges “come to Belize to hear cases, not
applications for adjournments.” In responding to Young’s request,
Nelson reminded the judges that he was good to go and moreover, the Appeals
Board had in fact set a date for the substantial hearing on the Venezuelan grant
funds and as such, it would not be “fair, proper and in the interest of
justice” for the board to proceed if the judges decided to adjourn today’s
matter until next year.
When he spoke, Michael Young, who represents the members of the Appeal Board,
said his clients did not object to the request but reminded the court that Chairman
Samuel Awich had said from the outset of the proceedings that the board would
abide by the findings of the Supreme Court and now, the Court of Appeal. Young
said, “this is the first time an appeal board has been constituted so
it would be in the interest of all parties, and the country, for this weighty
matter to be fully ventilated”.
After considering the submissions of all sides, the Court of Appeal unanimously
ruled that matter will heard at its next sitting, which is expected to be in
either February or March of 2009.
The justices went on to express the view that they would be “very surprised
if the December hearing proceeded in spite of today’s development”.
According to Marshallek, just to be sure the board does get the message, he
will be filing a formal application to the appeal board informing them of the
Court of Appeal’s decision and formally requesting an adjournment for
the substantive hearing. Those hearings had been set for the first week of December.
Email
Print