| Last night, we showed you how Prime Minister John Briceño tabled his government's General Revenue Supplementary Appropriation Bill #4 at yesterday's House Meeting.
This is how the government is seeking to retrospectively approve the 1.5 million dollars handed over to the Christian Workers Union, as an ex gratia payment to the stevedores.
But, the management of the Port of Belize Limited says that the Briceno Administration did not have the necessary parliamentary approval to disburse the money, but they went ahead and did it anyway. So, since PBL couldn't stop the government from doing that, they convinced Justice Lisa Shoman to grant an interim injunction to block the Christian Workers Union from distributing it to the stevedores.
That injunction expired today. So, when the case resumed this morning before Justice Shoman, Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith, the attorney for the Port, made his full argument to the court about why the frozen bank account should remain that way with the grant of another injunction.
He noted that although the Government has tabled a bill to get retroactive permission to spend this money, the Supreme Court has already has examined and judged this type of accounting for public funds. The disputed judgment from the former Chief Justice has concluded that supplementary appropriations were null and void if they were enacted and approved after the spending has occurred.
In response, Darrell Bradley, the attorney for the CWU, stressed that there is no direct cause of action against the union. He insisted that when the court assesses the originating motion for this case, it will conclude that the claimant is seeking declarations against the government defendants, and not against the CWU directly.
He argued further that to enjoin this payment of this fund serves absolutely no useful purpose to the Port's case.
He also made the point that the injunction has negatively impacted the stevedores, who are the real owners of the money. He urged the court to consider that they suffered irreparable harm.
In response, Smith submitted to the judge that court declarations have meaning and that the Briceno Government has an obligation to abide by them.
He reasons that the money will need to be returned - if the court finds that the "special warrant" used to pay it out is 'null and void" and that the supplementary appropriation is not an adequate fix.
After reviewing the arguments made by the litigants, Justice Shoman decided to grant the Port its injunction against the CWU. That means that the rest of the money from those 1.5 million dollars must remain frozen until this case is completely resolved. This evening, we spoke with the attorneys for claimants, and here's what they told the press in a virtual interview:
Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney for the Claimants
"This case isn't really about whether persons should get an ex gratia payment or not. Really, what this whole case is about is the manner in which you go about making expenditure of public monies, taxpayers monies, from the public coffers. As you are aware, quite coincidentally - and separately from this case - it so happens that the issue remains in public discourse based on other cases that were involved. It comes at a very opportune time, because as has been reported on various radio stations, the judgment of former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin, where he made certain pronouncements in terms of whether you could validate expenditure with supplementary appropriations, some doubt has been thrown into it because of the failure of a perfected order and so on. So, the issue - the law remains unsettled, and it needs to be clarified. Now to your question, you have rightly said that a supplementary appropriation has passed. More than likely, it will go through the Senate on Friday. How come then, there is still a challenge? And the answer is this. The judge accepted that there is a live question, a serious question as to whether that supplementary appropriation bill is sufficient to cure - let's call it the defect in the expenditure, the payment was made. Why did she accept that there is a serious question? [It's] because the government says that it was an unforeseen and urgent expenditure, and therefore, the Minister, by special warrant made the payment. The question, however, arises, from where must that payment come? It must come, according to the constitution, not from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but from another fund called the Contingencies Fund. Even if it is legitimately urgent and unforeseen, you cannot draw it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It has to come from the special fund."
|
