And while that election petition was being heard in one courtroom, another was staged before the Chief Justice this morning. That hearing concerned Martin Galvez's petition against UDP Lake Independence Area Rep., Mark King.
Viewers may recall that Galvez is contending that King is disqualified from being a member of the House of Representatives because at the time of his nomination, he had - and still has - a $135,000 Government Contract and he didn't declare his interests to the public.
Galvez says that the proof exists that King is the managing director of the Brints Security Firm, which has the contract to provide security for several government buildings, including the Charles Bartlett Hyde Building and the San Ignacio Sales Tax Office.
The actual petition stage, which has already been granted by Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin might not even arrive because Attorney Denys Barrow, who is representing King, made an application to strike the petition out of court. He says that there are no grounds for it.
Barrow and Attorney Lisa Shoman, who is representing Galvez, argued at length today on the strike-out application.
The entire hearing sounded like a History lesson to us, but nobody was actually addressing the real issue of the petition: does the contract exist, or doesn't it?
Both attorneys spoke to us outside, and Barrow said that the existence of the contract may not even matter because Galvez's attorneys have to prove that the contract fits within the realms of the disqualification rules.
Shoman said that this strike out motion will pass or fail based on the interpretation of what the words, "public service" means in the disqualification law:
Here's more of what they told us:
Lisa Shoman - Attorney for Martin Galvez
"I think that it went very well. I think it will turn on what the court believes is the true meaning of 'any contract for and on account of the public service'. These words have never been mitigated in court before; it's the first time that the court is being asked to look at the meaning in the Constitution. And I think it's very important because not only do you have to look at what was meant by the plain meaning of the words, but you have to look at why the words were put into the section. I think we have done, today, what we needed to do in terms of putting that in. It will really turn on whether the judge accepts our arguments, or that of the other side, but I feel that we have done the work to be able to put the materials before the court, so that a determination can be made."
Denys Barrow - Attorney for Mark King
"We made an application to have the case brought against Mark King struck out. It was on the basis that the law, which is relied upon, is in fact defined in our constitution, which refers to - which defines the meaning of the public service, and which has a specific, settled, distinct meaning referring to what used to be called the civil service. So, a contract by the government, or with the government, for or on account the public service has to be a contract which relates to - for instance - the employment of somebody with the public service. We gave numerous examples of this in court, so it comes down really, to a question of interpretation, and the Chief Justice has indicated that he will rule on this in exactly one week's time. The 1782 Act is the one which established this disqualification for the first time, and that law was interpreted very broadly - very widely - basically to say any contract that anybody makes with the Government of England, where the contract is for the provision of services to the public is a contract that will disqualify you. It was obviously found unsatisfactory in England because in 1931, England passed a law which was a declaratory law saying that it is only a limited class of contracts that in fact bring about any disqualification, and those were merchandizing contracts, and contracts to lend money to a government."
Daniel Ortiz
"We're speaking the technicalities of the law. When will the arguments actually be made on the contract itself? Does it exist, and what's it's effect?"
Denys Barrow
"I am proposing that we will not even reach there because the question is not whether a contract exists, but the question is whether there is a contract which falls afoul of the law. Let me give you an example. You can have other contracts that can lease land from Government. Consider that both Dean Barrow and Said Musa at one time, held contracts of leases with the Government of Belize. So, they were in contracts with the Government of Belize. The question is whether those contracts were for or on account of the public service so as to disqualify them from office. The answer has to be no."
Chief Justice Benjamin has reserved judgment on the strike-out application for next week Thursday.
Email
Print