Yesterday we told you about the Senate's landmark vote to reject a money bill that had already been passed by the House of Representatives. Independent and opposition senators thought that by voting down the bill, it would be delayed by one month.   But today the Government said that’s a misguided interpretation of the powers afforded to the Senate in the Constitution. 

Government issued a press release today stressing that the Senate has no influence over the assent of a money bill after it has been passed by the House. The press release also states that there will be no delay in the bill's assent, despite the Senate’s reservations. We spoke to Attorney General, Mike Peyrefitte, who laid out the law, according to government...

Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - Attorney General
"I can't see how they would expect there would be a delay. Section 78 of the Belize constitution act states very clearly and I quote from section 78-1. 'If a money bill, having been based by the House of Representative and sent to the Senate at least one month before the end of the session.' So it was passed in the house, the PACT act and then it was sent to the Senate at least one month before the end of the session. The session is not even close to an end. Where such a bill is 'not passed by the Senate without amendment' which means exactly that, it was rejected without amendment, it wasn't passed and it wasn't amended. 'Within one month after it is sent to that house', which clearly that qualifies to fall into that section because it's been less than a month since the house that passed it and the Senate that rejected it. It goes on to say 'the Bill shall, unless the House of Representatives otherwise resolves, be presented to the Governor- General for assent notwithstanding that the Senate has not consented to the Bill.' That is clear to me; I don't know where I get the thirty day delay from. The only time the month comes into play is to talk about a money bill that has been passed by the house and sent to the Senate at least one month before the end of the session, that has been done - and it has to be a bill, money bill that was passed by the house and rejected by the Senate within a month after it was passed by the house. I don't know how anybody can say there is a thirty day delay. When it comes to money bills, the Senate cannot block nor delay that bill. The Senate can only delay bills that are not money bills, how can thirteen people who are selected block or delay the importance of money bills pass by thirty one people who were elected? I think sometimes some Senators feel themselves a little too much and I think that with the advent of the thirteen Senator there was this feeling of somehow if there obstruction is enough that they can block the wishes of the government."

Alex Courtenay
"There's also a notion for a lack of a better word, a notion of pointlessness to the Senate meeting and voting on bills that they have no authority over in terms of whether it passes or not. Is this a failing of interpretation of the duties of what the Senate has to do in terms of money bills?"

Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"Well clearly, clearly people don't understand the Senate's roll especially when it comes to money bills but then they should understand because they swore to take an oath and they swore to an oath and they took an oath so they should have known the limitation of their powers. If you look at the Belize constitution act, the side note for section 78-1 specifically says restriction on powers of Senate as to money bills. So the constitution provides very clearly for a limited power, if power at all when it comes to the Senate on money bills."

PUP Senator Eamon Courtney gave us a statement today via text message, saying, quote, “This decision by the Government is an act of supreme arrogance. It is a disrespect to the democratic process. It shows a complete unwillingness to consult in order to improve the Bill. This is exactly what the CCJ warned against 'the cancer of prime ministerial governance’.â€￾ End quote.