7 News Belize

Schakron election Petition Goes Before the CJ
posted (March 26, 2012)
Since 7News showed you the photograph of Yolanda Schakron's American passport which our newsroom received anonymously, we've been keenly following the story of the outcomes, particularly, the February 17 rejection of her Lake Independence Candidacy.

Well, the elections have been held and Mark King has been sworn in as the duly elected area representative for Lake I, but that is far from the end of the story.

Last week, Schakron's attorney filed for leave to apply for an election petition, and today the preliminary hearing took place in the courtroom of Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin. If the leave is granted, the appellants will seek to have the election results in Lake I voided.

Yolanda Schakron and a registered Lake I voter Wilma White Munnings - who is assisting Schakron to bring the petition, are represented by attorneys Godfrey Smith and Lisa Shoman. Their position is that the Returning Officer for Lake I, Noreen Fairweather, acted outside of the powers given to her by the Representation of the People's Act when she disqualified Schakron based on her dual citizenship.

The problem is that Mark King and Attorney General, represented by Senior Counsel Denys Barrow and Crown Counsel Magali Perdomo, are contending that this matter has already been determined by Justice Legall when he handed down the judgment in the injunction case on February 17.

They further submitted that the appellants seek to circumvent that ruling by going through the motions of this election petition. The attorneys for the appellants, however, say that it's a totally different case with only a few overlapping issues.

Armed with those positions, it's was a lengthy back and forth of arguments between the attorneys in Chief Justice Benjamin's courtroom for about 4 hours today.

We spoke with the attorneys from both sides, and we asked them to explain their positions which they submitted in court.

Here's what both sides told us:

Lisa Shoman - Attorney for the Appellants
"This is not the hearing of the election petition. This is an application for leave to bring an election petition. Under the constitution, you have to ask for leave to present an election petition, and so, that was what the hearing was about today. The threshold - the test that you have to pass in order the satisfy the court that you are permitted to bring an election petition, is that there is an adequate case. And we tried to demonstrate to the court that not only do we believe there is an adequate case; there is an adequate case with a realistic prospect of success. Based on what our case is, which is that section 8 (1) of the third schedule of the Representation of the People Act, only gives the Returning Officer the power to inquire into the nomination paper, and nothing more."

Daniel Ortiz
"But, would you not agree that Justice Legall has already given a decision - determination?"

Lisa Shoman
"No, I don't agree because the matter before Justice Legall, 1, was for constitutional relief under section 20 of the constitution, and 2, it contained different parties. It was Yolanda Schakron and Moses Sulph in that case, and in this case, it is Yolanda Schakron and Wilma White Munnings. And Yolanda Schakron and Wilma White Munnings, in this case, are presenting an election petition. When the matter was heard before Justice Legall, there was no election petition that could be asked for. As you can see, we did not ask for leave in that case because it wasn't necessary. So it is not the same thing. We are saying that it is a different matter. It may involve an overlap of issues, but it is not the same thing."

Denys Barrow - Attorney for Respondents
"Their case really is that the Returning Officer did not have the legal capacity to make the determination that she made, which was Ms. Schakron was disqualified from being nominated as a candidate. Our case is that Justice Legall gave a ruling on that specific matter, and his ruling was that the Returning Officer was required to make such a determination. So, the question is whether the Chief Justice will decide one way or the other, in their favor or our favor."

Marion Ali - Love News
"Mrs. Shoman is saying that they are 2 different cases altogether."

Denys Barrow
"Well, that is what they argued in there, and in a very broad way, it is an argument that they can advance, but as Mr. Smith very - I think - prudently indicated, there is - as he puts it - some overlap. Actually, he was talking about the difference in what he called the causes of action because this election petition seeks to set aside the election, and the application made to Justice Legall sought to stop the Returning Officer from making a decision. He is saying that they are two different causes of action that overlooks the fundamental point that Justice Legall decided, the one simple issue which is an issue in this case which is does the Returning Officer have the legal capacity to decide that you are not qualified to be nominated? Justice Legall gave a decision on that point. The question is whether that decision applies to the fact that they are now seeking to litigate exactly the same issue once more before the Chief Justice now, on an election petition. So, they are different procedures, but the same issues. Did the Returning Officer have the capacity to make that determination?"

Chief Justice Benjamin has indicated that he will give his decision on Friday whether he will grant the leave for the election petition.

It is a key point to note that Chief Justice Bejamin voiced the concern that the appellants seek for him to quote "walk around the ruling made by Justice Legall." End quote. How much that weighs in to his decision remains to be seen.

Home | Archives | Downloads/Podcasts | Advertise | Contact Us

7 News Belize