“Freedom of movement is not a license to trespass.”
That was the ruling of the Chief Justice this morning
in the matter of Patrick Faber versus the 
Attorney General. Viewers will recall that in the height of political unrest in April 2005, Faber, then an Opposition
Area Representative, was unceremoniously dragged across the University of Belize’s
Belmopan campus after he broke through a police barrier and tried to make a
beeline for the gym, where then Prime Minister Said Musa was giving an address
to the students and staff of the University.
Faber was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of Aggravated
Assault. Those charges were later dropped but in 2006, the Area Rep. launched
a Constitutional claim against the Government, asserting that his right to liberty
and freedom of expression were violated by the police. Well, they weren’t,
not according to Chief Justice Dr. Abdulai Conteh.
In handing down his decision this morning Chief Justice Conteh found
that police were in fact justified in their actions under the Police Act and
the Criminal Code. He said that Faber was, “obstructing police...invites
them to arrest him...” As the CJ put it, the forum was organized
just for UB students and staff, and Faber, “had no right to be there...”
The judge went on to state that had the police allowed Faber to enter 
the gym, the crowd of agitated protestors would have followed him and a bedlam
of chaos would have ensued. The CJ declared, “freedom of movement is not
license to trespass” and, with that, dismissed Faber’s constitutional
claim.
Outside the courtroom, now Minister of Education Faber told the press
he was “surprised” at the decision but suggested that the CJ only
reached that conclusion because he was not privy to all the evidence. Despite
the testimony of from Police and UB officials to the contrary, Faber insists
the event was open to the public and that UB never asked the police to stop
anyone from entering the campus.
Hon. Patrick Faber,
“I am telling you that off the record, I was apolgoized a day or two
after this incident happened. I do have that conversation with UB officials
tape recorded. I don’t want to share it but I recorded it purposefully
to show that they were not, in fact they said to me, ‘Honourable you are
a member of the House of Representatives, as far as we are concerned, you are
part of the university family, you’ve been invited on this compound many
many times in different capacities to share with our student government and
our student population and our UB family so we would never.’
In fact even when I cross-examined the young man Ivor Nicholas I think
his name is who was the President of the Belmopan Student Government, they asked
him would you have stopped the Honourable Faber from coming in, did you give
a specific instruction that he was not supposed to come in, he agreed that no
that was not the case and he would never have stopped a member of the House
of Representatives from entering a forum like that or entering the campus of
the university for that matter.”
Janelle Chanona,
“Minister looking back would you do what you did all over again?”
Hon. Patrick Faber,
“I would, absolutely do it all over again. I think what came out here
today too is they tried to, the judgement puts in such a way that it was because
of all the other unrest that was going on that a kind of season or a kind of
something was in the air. The police had to even take special measures and I
don’t agree with that at all. I believe that people’s rights and
liberties should always be protected.”
The Attorney General’s case was presented by Priscilla Banner
while Deshawn Arzu of Young’s Law Firm defended Minister Faber. And while
Faber was only surprised by the dismissal of his case, he told us he’s
downright disturbed by the length of time that the case took to reach a conclusion.
According to him, three years is three years too long.
Hon. Patrick Faber,
“Indeed when you take so long to write a judgement then many of the
remembrances of what actually happened in the courtroom, even though I understand
that it is detailed and it is written down and of course the statements are
there, it takes something away from the judgement of course when it takes so
long and in this case the Chief Justice himself, this is a criticism that has
come and I want to put that on the record that I absolutely support those who
are saying that we should have timely judgements. This is a constitutional matter.
When there is the claim that somebody’s constitutional rights have been
breached, justice should be swift and justice should be swift at all times for
that matter but it should be even swifter when it comes to the constitutional
rights of a citizen of this country and in this case it certainly was not swift.”
Will he appeal? Faber says, it is “more than likely, but not
definite.”
Email
Print