Last night, we told you about why the PUP's favorite Supreme Court judgment against Former Prime Minister Dean Barrow technically doesn't exist.

As we told you, back in 2020, Former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin ruled that Barrow failed to follow the country's constitution and the Finance And Audit Reform Act. The retired judge agreed with the complaint by way of a lawsuit from the PUP Parliamentarians, John Briceno and Julius Espat - back when their party was in Opposition.

The problem is that although Former Chief Justice Benjamin delivered an oral decision on the lawsuit, he never perfected his judgment and the orders against Barrow and his Administration. Briceno and Espat, who are now in government, attempted to get around that issue with the judgment, but the Supreme Court strongly disagreed with their suggested intervention.

We've been reviewing the ruling from Acting Chief Justice Michelle Arana on that matter, and tonight take a closer look at the issues being raised. Daniel Ortiz has that story:

Back in January of 2020, the PUP - which was the Party in Opposition - won a significant legal victory against Former Prime Minister Dean Barrow. After presenting their full case, they successfully convinced Former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin that Barrow, when he was Minister of Finance, failed to properly follow the constitution and get prior parliamentary approval to spend 1.3 Billion dollars in public funds.

They complained that Former PM Barrow abused what are known as "Special Warrants" in the Ministry of Finance to basically press the panic button so that these massive sums could be paid out of Consolidated Revenue Fund. The PUP's case against Barrow was that the disbursal from the public purse were treated as "urgent and unforeseen" when, really, those expenditures were not - for example - relief for a natural disaster, such as a hurricane.

File: January 31, 2020 Eamon Courtney, SC - Attorney for Briceno/Espat
"To put it in plain man's language, the Chief Justice - and these are my words - found that the Prime Minister has been operating the government like a panades shop, and the result of his judgment today is to tell him in no uncertain terms that he must comply with the constitution, comply with the Finance and Audit Reform Act and go to parliament and get approval."

Armed with the Former Chief Justice's findings against Former PM Barrow, the Briceno Administration has been reminding the Opposition UDP that they have no moral standing to criticize their supplementary appropriations as "unlawful" or inappropriate. After all, they have a judgment against Barrow, which says he did something more egregious, right?

It recently came up during the debate over the last Supplementary Appropriation Bill of the current fiscal year.

House Meeting: February 4, 2022 Hon. John Briceno - Prime Minister
"The Supreme Court of Belize found that Dean Barrow and the UDP spent roughly 1.3 billion dollars, over several years of their administration, without getting the requisite parliamentary approvals."

Hon. Eamon Courtenay - Senator for Government Business
"We are here because section 114 and 115, 116, 117 of the constitution speaks to the way public finances are to be dealt with. We will hear those who violated the constitution speak in a short while. We on this side are not ashamed of coming here on every occasion to comply with the law. The lawbreakers, we will hear them shortly."

Hon. Collet Montejo - PUP Senator
"What I find very interesting is this: 1.3 billion spent without getting permission from the National Assembly, 1.3 billion. And, our good friend has the audacity to come in here and grandstand when this government does the responsible thing, the legal thing."

Unfortunately, there's a major problem with the judgment from the former Chief Justice. He left office without perfecting it and the orders he granted against former PM Barrow. He delivered his judgment orally on January 31, 2020, but there is no finalized written version. That's because the parties were still in a heated dispute over what the final orders are.

So, to correct the failure of the former Chief Justice who didn't give a perfected judgment, the claimants, John Briceno and Julius Espat, brought an application before the acting Chief Justice Michelle Arana. Basically, they were urging her to complete the final steps to make the 2020 judgment binding.

After listening to their arguments, the judge thinks that "the application is wholly misconceived."

Her judgment continues, quote, "To seek to have this court, a court of concomitant jurisdiction, rely on the transcript of the case to infer the terms of the order, and lift a stay which may or may not exist, and give effect to an order that is ambiguous and perhaps non-existent is preposterous." End quote.

And, recognizing the political implications of the case, the judge scolded the litigants saying, quote, "The Court is not a football to be kicked around by opportunists of any political party; it is hoped that the grave ill complained of, that is, the bringing of supplementary allocations and expenditure raised or received by the State without first seeking approval of the House of Representatives, as well as the retrospective appropriation of monies contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the Finance and Audit Reform Act has now ceased since the parties before the court in this Claim are now wearing different hats." End quote.

So, that's where it's at currently, the legal ball and chain that the PUP has sought to shackle Former PM Barrow has no effect. And as to the Former Chief Justice's findings against him, Barrow describes it as "words writ on water".

Rt. Hon. Dean Barrow - Former Prime Minister
"Whatever the judge may have said turned out to be words writ in water because there was no actual judgment emanating from the courts. So, it's nonsensical to try to say, well, but if the judgment had been perfected, this is what it would have said. It wasn't perfected. So, it says nothing..."

As you heard, Acting Chief Justice Arana did take note of the fact that the litigants have basically switched roles. The complainants have become the government of the day, and the defendants are now the Party in Opposition.

She also expressed her hope that the violations being complained about in this case have stopped.