Email

Print

Here's how the PUP explained its position at a press conference held this evening:

Hon. Francis Fonseca, Leader of the Opposition
"The loan motion seeks to ratify and confirm what in our view is illegal borrowing and spending by this UDP government since September 2012. The manner in which the borrowing and spending has been conducted is contrary to the intent of the act and has defeated and frustrated the intent of the act which is to provide for better provisions regulating public revenue and expenditure. When the line between the Petrocaribe fund and the UDP coffers is blurred, we in the PUP have a responsibility to question and challenge the use of those funds."

Hon. Julius Espat - Chairman, Public Accounts Committee
"The Prime Minister of Belize in 2008 convinced the Belizean people, he convinced the unions, he convinced the Chamber of Commerce, he convinced the churches that he would do things differently; that he would be accountable; that he would show transparency and he was for good governance. Low and behold in 2012 when this loan started to develop he went against every single that he promised."

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney For Opposition Party
"What the loan motion that has been tabled in the House has revealed is that the executive branch of government has been engaged in borrowing millions of dollars and also in spending millions of dollars without the authorization of the National Assembly. At core that is the executive usurping functions of the legislature."

Hon. Julius Espat
"Governments become complacent because of this money. They believe that that is all they have to depend on. This money will not continue forever. We do not see that the Prime Minister and this government is spending enough time to be able to be creative enough to drive this economy when this money dries up and that is something the Belizean people have to realize too."

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"He has betrayed the trust and confidence of the Belizean people and has been exposed as a hypocrite and a bearer of false promises."

Hon. Julius Espat
"I am not an attorney, but in my layman mind what the Prime Minister has done and what the Prime Minister is trying to do to rectify his error, based on the amendment that he has put forward in 2010, I consider him a criminal."

So, the injunction being sought from the Supreme Court seeks to block the Government from accessing more money from the Petrocaribe Agreement, until it gets the proper approval from the House of Assembly. Today, the PUP said that the case is important because Barrow's actions as Prime Minister while dealing with the Petrocaribe Money, is a perfect example of those "malignant tumours" that he likes to talk about when referring to the last PUP administration:

Andrew Marshalleck
"At the root of the claim is an allegation that the executive is usurping legislative function that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is making decisions that properly belong to the National Assembly/ But it's not only that the decisions have been made, it's also that they've been acted upon and acted upon for a number of years in this way. This kind of problem , this kind of usurpation of legislative function is precisely the problem that arose and that the Caribbean Court of Justice was so critical of in the Belize Bank case and gave rise to the very quote that the Prime Minister is so fond of and I know you all know which one I am talking about; it says and it was from Mr. Justice Saunders: Prime ministerial governance, a priority of check and balances to restrain and over weaning executive, these are the malignant tumors that eat away at democracy. The section and law doesn't contemplate seeking authorization after you've already borrowed, it uses the language "shall only be validly entered into" which makes clear that the approval is to be sought before the borrowing. And two; the section speaks to borrowing from commercial lenders in capital market, so the attempt to authorize the borrowing by way of the motion is misguided."

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"This legal claim is not an attack on development and the UDP apologist would like you to believe. It is a legal claim on behalf of the Belizean people to stop the abuse and misuse of public funds."

Andrew Marshalleck
"The injunction sought in the court proceedings do not seek to restrain the spending of Petrocaribe monies without more. The government is free to spend Petrocaribe monies in any way it considers fit providing of course that it gets the authorization of the National Assembly. So what the injunction seek to do is to compel compliance with the law in doing the things that they have been doing."

But, as we showed you last week, the Prime Minister dismissed the case as frivolous and an attempt by the Opposition to get political mileage. Today, we got a reaction on that from the PUP, but first, we re-air the Prime Minister's comments for context. here's what he had to say:

FILE: October 30, 2014
Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
"I believe honestly and with the utmost conviction that this challenge to the Petrocaribe program and this effort to stop the Petrocaribe spending is a case that the opposition cannot win either in the supreme court or in the court of public opinion."

Godfrey Smith, SC - National Campaign Manager, PUP
"You know that Prime Minister's stock answer to every legal challenge that is brought against any of his government's actions. But he doesn't stop there. When the judgments go against him he also publicly rebuffs the judges who made the decisions, so we are not at all surprised and I am sure neither are you that he has characterized wrongly this action as frivolous. It is anything but frivolous."

But, as you may have noticed, the Opposition's critics have been pointing out that when the Musa Administration entered their version of the Petrocaribe agreement with Venezuela in 2007, the Belizean public didn't get any benefits that they can point to. There has also been the suggestion that funds were mismanaged. We put those tough questions to the Opposition Leader, and here's how he responded:

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"The UDP rhetoric and propaganda that is at the foundation of every response to criticism or challenge is well the PUP use to do it. That no longer carried weight with the Belizean people. That rhetoric has worn thin."

Daniel Ortiz
"Is that when you explain what's your position on this an acknowledgement that the PUP version of the Petrocaribe initiative was tainted with corruption?"

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"Absolutely not. The point I have been making and I've been making this point consistently, we have consistently said and what I said today and I repeat again is that we have to draw the line. This action is not about the past. This action is about the future. We have to start to give proper adherence to these laws, we have to start sometime and in 2014, that is where the People's United Party is."

Daniel Ortiz
"In order to show that example of accountability, would your PUP now be willing to disclose what was the use of the funds generated from the 2007 version of the Petrocaribe funds? We are informed through credible reports that some39 million dollars were generated and there isn't any showing of what that benefit did for the Belizean people."

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"I don't accept what you are saying. I don't know where you are getting that from. I don't know the amounts of money. I know it was a very small pittance compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Barrow has raised. So it was a small pittance and if there was not proper accountability for those funds then yes we have to condemn that as well. The point is if it was wrong then it is wrong now."

Daniel Ortiz
"How do you generate the moral quantum to convince the Belizean people when your government has that taint of allegation still hanging over its head?"

Hon. Francis Fonseca
"I think that's the challenge of every politician - the challenge of very government. We make our case to the Belizean people. I don't accept the premise of your question, but we make our case to the Belizean people."

We'll keep following closely how this lawsuit develops, and the parallel developments in the House of Representatives where it will be debated on November 18th.