7 News Belize

UDP Breathes Easy; Mark King Election Challenge Dismissed
posted (May 17, 2012)
Tonight, the UDP faithful can rest easy: the election petition against Mark King - which seemed to have the most solid ground - has been struck out of court.

The election petition against King, which was brought by his political opponent, Martin Galvez, challenged his legitimacy as a duly elected member of the House of Representatives.

Galvez's attorneys, Godfrey Smith and Lisa Shoman, provided the court with documents which claimed that King was the Managing Director of the Security Firm, Brints, and that his company was in a contract with the Government of Belize.

By the election rules, this supposedly made King unfit to take up elected office because he failed to declare his interests in this company to the public via the media.

Denys Barrow, who was representing King, argued against Shoman and Smith before Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin for several weeks, and in the end, Barrow was able to get Chief Justice Benjamin to dismiss the petition.

It's a landmark case because never before in the Caribbean has contract law been litigated as thoroughly as this. Chief Justice Benjamin's decision today has set a precedent when he accepted Barrow's submissions that the disqualification law refers to a limited class of government contracts, and that this security contract was not in that class.

We spoke to the attorneys about this important outcome:

Lisa Shoman - Attorney for Martin Galvez
"His Lordship took the view that the interpretation of the words 'for and on account of the public service should mean very narrowly the institute of the public service. Obviously, we do not agree with that interpretation, and the legal team will be discussing it. In my own personal view, this is something would choose to appeal, however it has to be decision after sitting down, speaking to Mr. Galvez, and having a discussion with the entire legal team."

Daniel Ortiz
"How far can you go in terms appealing? Is this a matter that can be appealed?"

Lisa Shoman
"I would say that it is because it turns on the interpretation of a section of the constitution. And so, I would say that yes, it is an appeal-able matter, and therefore we would take it one step at a time."

Marion Ali - Love News
"Which do you feel was your strongest point in your arguments that you presented?"

Lisa Shoman
"The strongest would be what it was that the framers of the constitution intended by the entire disqualification section, and to me, that entire section deals not only with disqualification for persons in (h), but (g) as well, which is the section that's directed to office holders. So, therefore, I still take the point, and I still hold the view that this section was meant to be interpreted in a much wider way."

Denys Barrow - Attorney for Mark King
"The judge accepted - I think - all of the submissions which we made, which as was mentioned one of the stations, amounted to a tracing of the history of this provision, and ending up with the point of today's constitutional provision, which is to make a determination as to what the constitution intended to capture in relation to contracts. And it is clear from what the judge has now decided that the constitution does not intend to disqualify anybody because you have just the fact of a contract with the Government of Belize. The constitution intends to capture a limited class of contracts. Therefore, this contract, as the judge has indicated, does not fall within the scope of that constitutional disqualification. It will be only a contract which has the effect of putting a person directly within a contractual relationship with the civil service of the country that would be captured by the constitutional disqualification. As you would appreciate - and I heard somebody asked the question a number of times - that the fact there does exist a contract, as it were, the question has been, how can it be that such a contract is not caught? Well the reality is that the constitutional provision allows you to have any contract whatsoever, including with the civil service, as long as, beforehand, you publish a notice in the media saying that this contract exists. So there is nothing wrong with having a contract. The problem is - or the requirement is - that you must disclose it in advance. And it is only those contracts which are caught by the constitutional provision, which need to be disclosed. Therefore a contract to build a building, to provide security services, to create a sculpture - none of these things would be caught by the constitutional disqualification, and to my mind that makes manifest, obvious good sense. As the history of the thing indicates, this law has always been regarded as obscure. It has been described as obscure, as having ridiculous results in England, and yet we still have the vestiges of it. So that's where we are."

As noted in the interview Galvez can appeal Chief Justice Benjamin's decision, and we are told, unofficially, that he is inclined to do so.

Chief Justice Benjamin also awarded costs of $7,500 dollars to King and his attorney - while the Government must bear its own costs.

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

7 News Belize