Email

Print

There was a major judgement coming out of the Caribbean Court of Justice today relating to Belize.  

The CCJ dismissed an appeal from Bar Association of Belize challenging The Attorney General of Belize challenging the sixth amendment to the constitution.  Â That’s the one that relates to the appointment and tenure of judges. 

The CCJ did not find the amendment unconstitutional, but it did find that the way of appointing judges does not bode well for an independent judiciary.  The panel of 5 judges unanimously agreed on very clear recommendations to completely revise the appointment and tenure of Justices of Appeal.
And that's why the Bar Association - which, although it didn't win, did seize upon the judgement as a major move towards effective judicial reform.  Eamon Courtney and Andrew Marhsalleck argued the case for the Bar - and today Marshalleck underscored the key points:…

Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney, Bar Assoc.
“The change in the law in of itself does not contravene the constitution so the appeal was dismissed on that basis but they accepted and perceived that although the law itself did not contravene the constitution, the way appointments were being made ran the serious risk of contravening the constitution and so they have made some recommendations to some rather sweeping reform to the way those appointments to the court of appeal are to be made in the future. Right now appointments are made by the Prime Minister after consultation with the leader of the opposition; the recommendation is for appointments to hereafter be made by an independent commission such as the judicial and legal services commission now which makes appointments for the Supreme Court. So the suggestion is to establish a commission along those lines to affect appointments to the court of appeal. The second recommendation is these fix term contracts for judges should be done away with, that judges should be appointed until retirement age and in respect to those non-resident judges who sometimes we refer to them as itinerant - they come and they go. They should also be appointed until retirement age but then they can be invited to sit as and when needed. And the third recommendation is that these 1 year appointments seize until these other recommendations are put in place.â€￾

Jules Vasquez
“Isn’t it only a recommendation that it be change, it is not per-say an order or the court?â€￾

Andrew Marshalleck, SC
“Oh no it’s not an order of the court because an instance hasn’t been brought before it where such an order would be appropriate but if a challenge was made to a particular appointment in the future, a specific one then the signal is given as to what the thinking of the court is. So you run the risk of running afoul or running into a finding by the court that a particular appointment is unconstitutional. They should send a very clear strong message to the authorities and to our parliamentarians - I’m talking government, I’m talking opposition because they both need to act to affect a constitutional amendment. That changes need to be made to guarantee independence and impartiality of our second tier court and that’s what the decision clearly says so.â€￾

The Court recommended immediate adoption of the recommendations.