Email

Print

Daniel Ortiz, 7News
"The UDP Government and Party itself has taken a stance that you are textbook case what conflict of interest is. You serve the people of Belize on the senate as PUP's appointee, but you are also serving Lord Ashcroft as the attorney and those interest are in direct conflict in this instance. How do you respond?"

Hon. Eamon Courtenay - PUP Senator
"First of all, I think we need to look at the facts. When the matter came to the Senate - I believe it was the 30th - the issue was that the Prime Minister had laid out in the House of Representatives that the Foreign Reserves of Belize were at risk, as a result of enforcement action in the United States, and that it was necessary to pass the legislation to protect, insulate and immunize the foreign reserves. You will recall that we did not have notice of that. Nobody was able to look into that or research it, and therefore, in principle, the party took a position that they would support it. Subsequent to that, we discovered that what the Prime Minister said was not true. It was a falsehood. The foreign reserves in Belize are protected by the laws of the United States of America, and the fact show, as we can stand here and show, there has been no attempt to go after the foreign reserves of Belize. You cannot go after the foreign reserves of any country. That is the law of the United States."

"Now. I had specifically said in the Senate, first of all, that the law was being proposed was directed at me, and that I was personally and professionally affected by it. You will recall that I also spoke in the Senate about the fact that, to the extent that there was a belief that there was a need to protect the reserves, that should be done and there was absolutely no need for any criminal legislation dealing with this matter. Protect the reserves, and that's the end of it."

"Upon research, it is pelucid to me that the law is unconstitutional in the criminal sentences and provisions that it provide. I practice law as the constitution guarantees me. I have attorneys in my office who practice law, and who have advised, and who will advise in the future. And, they, like me, are at risk of criminal prosecution by this Government. The CCJ has already declared that the provision that they have relied on is unconstitutional. The constitution of Belize says specifically in Section 6 that you cannot create a criminal offense in relation to things that have happened already, and that is what the law does."

So, in that explanation, you saw how he only vaguely touched on how the attorneys can be affected by the law. So, we kept asking more questions on his justification, and here's how he answered them:

Hon. Eamon Courtenay - PUP Senator
"The law says that anybody who advises certain people, for example who are attempting to enforce arbitration awards, are liable to be prosecuted for a criminal offense."

"I have an obligation to strike down that law, to ask the court to strike down that law, to challenge that law as long as I believe that I am affected by it, and as long as I believe that people around me may be affected it. And I want to respond specifically to the question of a conflict of interest. The People's United Party, and I, maintain that we will do any and everything to protect the reserves of Belize. There is no change from that, and there is no conflict with that. I have a right to go to the court to challenge any piece of legislation that affects me, and you will recall, Daniel, that immediately after the Senate meeting, the Attorney General was interviewed, and He expected the law to be challenged, and that people have right to challenge it constitutionally."

"Now, who has a conflict of interest? I am saying to the media and to the public of Belize, the Prime Minister of this country is to declare to the people of Belize whether or not his law firm is a shareholder in Mr. Ashcroft's company. I repeat, is the Prime Minister's law firm a shareholder in Mr. Ashcroft company? We need an answer to that."

We did try to reach the Prime Minister by text message to get comment on that very strong suggestion by Courtenay, but he did not respond. We learned this evening that the PM is traveling on official business.

Now, you may have noticed that in that entire discussion with Courtenay, he never actually addressed the conflict of interest allegation: Belize vs Lord Ashcroft. So, the press kept bringing it back up, and here's how he finally took it head on:

Daniel Ortiz
"Are you saying that you are not challenging this law on behalf of a client of yours, Mr. Lord Ashcroft, but you're challenging it on behalf of attorneys who practice law and could be the subject of the criminal sanctions of this law?"

Hon. Eamon Courtenay - PUP Senator
"No, there are 2 lawsuits: 1 filed by Lord Ashcroft's company, Caribbean Investment Holdings Limited, and 1 filed by my law firm. 2 separate things, and we are counsel in the one for Lord Ashcroft, and we are bringing the other one on our behalf."

Daniel Ortiz
"Sir, how would you answer to a criticism that this distinction that you are making is, according to what person would interpret, a distraction from the fact that you actually are serving Lord Ashcroft's purposes here."

Hon. Eamon Courtenay
"Daniel, you've got to be kidding me. I am attorney at law, and that is my profession. I have been representing companies related to Lord Ashcroft for years, as Mr. Barrow continues to do, through his lawfirm. That is my business. Mr. Barrow does that and he goes to the House. He is in the absolutely same position. Mr. Peyrefitte has a lawfirm now, and he represents people, and he goes to the House. You hearing already talking about getting in contact with Anthony Sylvestre and challenging legislation. The Attorney General is saying that he thinks that legislation should be challenged. So, you have many lawyers, Mr. Musa, there are many lawyers who are in the House, vote a particular way, but then when you come out, in your professional life, you have client who says that I am afflicted by this, this is constitutional or on constitutional, and you take up their challenge."

"Let's really stop and ask ourselves, what is this all about? Let's assume, for example, that I were to not represent Michael Ashcroft, you think Michael Ashcroft would stop? You really think that if I am not representing Michael Ashcroft, he will say, Oh my God, Mr. Courtenay is not representing me. I better go home because I can't collect this? Believe me, Michael Ashcroft is the most tenacious litigator I have ever come across in my professional life, and I don't believe for a second that it is because of me that he is able to do the litigation. The litigation would continue."

Alindy Marisol Amaya - KREM News
"Just as Lord Ashcroft can find anyone to defend him, you as an attorney can decline defending him. How do you justify your position as Senator, who is for the people, or should be for the people, defending a man who appears at all costs to want to destroy Belize, based on agreements that have been declared - or condemned rather - by the CCJ, our highest court?"

Hon. Eamon Courtenay
"First of all, the CCJ, referred to one agreement, one agreement, that's the first thing. But, you will look in the code of conduct of the legal profession, and you'll see what my legal obligation is. And what is the obligation of any attorney? We have an obligation to take and represent people as long as we do not have any conflict of interest. I don't know what Mr. Ashcroft's intention is, and you all will have to talk to him, about what his intention is. I do not believe that he has any intention to destroy Belize. Collecting his debt is not destroying Belize."