Last night, we told you about the first application for election petition which was granted by Justice Michelle Arana. That was the election petition by the PUP against UDP Standard Bearer Herman Longsworth.
The news tonight is that another of the PUP's applications for an election petition was heard before Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin.
The PUP, on behalf of Martin Galvez, contends that the Mark King, the duly elected Area Rep. for Lake I is disqualified because his security company has a contract with the Ministry of Finance.
Brint's Security, of which King is allegedly the General Manager, is in a 135 hundred thousand dollar contract with GOB, which started on July 2011 and ends on July 2013. In this contract, the security firm is charged with protecting the Charles Bartlett Hyde Building on Mahogany Street Extention, and the San Ignacio Sales Tax Office.
Just like the alleged disqualification of Albert's Herman Longsworth, under Section 58 of the Belize Constitution, King is allegedly disqualified to run as an area rep, and to become of a Minister of Government.
Galvez as the petitioner is represented by Attorney Lisa Shoman.
Attorney Denys Barrow, who represented Mark King, says that the appellant's lawyer has only provided the court with allegations and no actual proof.
It was a lengthy back and forth in the Court Room of CJ Benjamin which finished just minutes ago. We were able to speak with both sides outside of court.
We'll show what Denys Barrow had to say in unedited fashion:
Denys Barrow - Attorney for Mark King
"There were two arguments on our side that the application is entirely misconceived, that the qualifying affidavit, which is needed to support this application, was hopeless. It's violates all sorts of rules."
Marion Ali - Love News
"It appears as though your arguments were based more on procedural law, than the contents of the contract, as such."
Denys Barrow
"At this stage, it is not a question of the content of the petition because as you will gather, one does not go into it at this stage at all. So, on the leave application, you treat everything which is said as if though it were correct, and decide whether if everything said was correct, and if it does still entitle them to get leave."
Jose Sanchez - Channel 5 News
"What were your points about Marlon Clarke?"
Denys Barrow
"Marlon Clark swore an affidavit on March 27, and deposed that he swore to what took place on March 28, the day after."
Now, here's what Lisa Shoman had to say - because of time - meaning the hearing finished just minutes ago, her remarks are also unedited:
Marion Ali - Love News
"The other side said that the evidence you've submitted is totally inadmissible, what are your arguments?"
Lisa Shoman - Attorney for Martin Galvez
"I would make the argument that it is not. We've submitted all the documentary and affidavit evidence that is needed to bare out the case. The examination of what weight to put on the evidence, whether it is admissible or not, we make the point that all of that is something that is done at trial, similarly in the way that Madam Justice Arana granted leave in the case for Herman Longsworth. This is a similar type of case, and it has the same types of affidavits and documentary evidence as was enclosed in that one. So, it really will be up to the judge to decide whether this is an interlocutory proceeding, and whether this is a stage at which he would then look at that affidavit evidence. They have filed absolutely no evidence to contradict the evidence that we have filed, or to say that it is not true. And that is something that the Belizean public should know."
Marion Ali - Love News
"Is it something that they must prove at this point? You said that they didn't enter any evidence."
Lisa Shoman
"No, but if you are going to say that what is there is not a real contract, you would think that this is something that you would want to bring about. What we're saying is that, fair enough; you don't want to disclose? We have disclosed at this stage. We have brought enough to the court's attention for them to say that there is an arguable case. That is the threshold that we have to cross. It's not an invisible threshold; it is a threshold that is real, and you must cross it. We believe that we have brought enough evidence before the court. Of course, will be up to his Lordship to decide whether that is enough, or whether it is not enough, what it is the admissibility, and what at this stage is required for counsel to do."
CJ Benjamin has reserved tomorrow afternoon as the time he will deliver his judgment.
The next election petition by the UDP against Francis Fonseca, which was also to be heard before CJ Benjamin today, is scheduled for tomorrow morning.
Email
Print