In the U.S. Military and some secret societies, there’s a process
called hazing – it’s a ritual of initiation, which involves harassment,
abuse and humiliation for the novitiate. And that’s kind of what Said
Musa got today in his first session back to the House on the Opposition bench.
Sure, Mr. Musa is no newcomer to the House, he’s in his 6th term, but
he’s not been on the Opposition side for 10 years and he missed the first
House sitting. So when he came today, the government side – particularly
the Prime Minister – had a punishment in store for him. But the government
majority didn’t have to go out of their way to get at Musa, it came up
in the regular order of business.
That business started with the debate preceding the second teading
of the Referendum Amendment Bill. It proposes to allow the public to trigger
a referendum provided they get a petition signed by 10% of the electorate and
provided that 60% of the electorate participates in the referendum. And it’s
those provisions that the Opposition felt were too stringent.
Hon. Johnny Briceno, PUP Leader
“It requires the signature of the voters and then it continues, ‘the
full name of the elector in block letters, his or her date of birth, the place
of their residence, the electoral division in which she is registered, and any
other such information that the Governor General may by regulation under this
Act prescribed.’ I mean wow, that is certainly a lot that people would
have to go through if they want to hold a referendum.”
Hon. Mark Espat, Area Representative for Albert
“60% of the total electors in Belize or in any particular area or 
district, as the bill says, would have to participate in this referendum in
order for it to be recognized. Yet even at 60%, even if we attain the 60%, the
results would still not be binding. 60% is not easy to achieve Mr. Speaker.
The recent referendum on the elected Senate for example, which the government
chose to ignore, the referendum here in Belmopan on whether Belmopan was to
become a city – neither of those two received 60%.”
Hon. Francis Fonseca, Area Representative for Freetown
“Because Prime Minister I think the general perception is that it
is an in fact unattainable threshold.”
Hon. Mark Espat,
“Mr. Speaker there is a far more serious issue. There is an issue
of paramount concern, one that I would refer to as a Trojan horse in this Bill
and that is the removal of the requirement for an automatic referendum on any
proposed change to part 2 of the Constitution of Belize. The original referendum
law would force any government to go to the Belizean people and ask them to
approve changes to their fundamental rights and freedoms. It is an additional
safeguard, another checkpoint if you will, against arbitrary altering of these
sacrosanct rights and freedoms by a government with the super majority.
The proper thing to do is to make the case to the Belizean people to secure
their support by way of a referendum. Belize does not need a Caesar, benevolent
as he may consider himself to be, to interpret the will of the people for the
people. That should be done by way of a referendum.”
Hon. Francis Fonseca,
“People in other countries are dying to protect their fundamental
rights and freedoms and here we are in Belize today moving to remove out of
the Referendum Act the protection of those rights, saying to the Belizean people,
‘you will not have a right to vote on whether or not those fundamental
rights and freedoms should be kept.’ That was put in there for a specific
purpose, because all of us, the entire world community appreciates the vital
importance of protecting those rights and freedoms.”
Hon. Patrick Faber, Collet Area Rep.
“Mr. Speaker but it is important that I point out as Chairman of the 
Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee that when the official opportunity
was presented for members on that side to make their contributions, not even
one of the members on that side made their way to Belmopan to contribute to
the debate.”
Rt. Hon. Said Musa, Fort George Area Rep.
“The fundamental issue at stake in this bill, which is the reason
why I support my colleagues in saying we cannot support this bill, is because
it is a ‘one-two punch’ that the government is hoping to put on
the Belizean people. The first punch is to pass this referendum amendment. The
second punch, straight to the temple, is to take away their right, by abrogating
their right under chapter 2 of the Constitution.
How can the Prime Minister call this a reform measure? It is more a deform
measure affecting the rights of the people. The amendment is not only anti-democratic,
it is a sinister ploy, like I said to set the stage for the government to be
able to abridge citizen’s rights by amending the constitution with their
three-fourths majority without allowing the people to express their opinion
on the matter.”
Hon. John Saldivar, Belmopan Area Rep.
“I sit here and from my layman’s point of view, I am not a trained
lawyer, but I’ve heard at least the two lawyers on the other side now
get up and complain about the fact that we are repealing the section of the
Referendum Act as it pertains to these special freedoms. And I have to ask myself
Mr. Speaker, if the constitution is the supreme law of this land, how can we
have a law which is lower than our constitution suggest how we should go about
changing our constitution.
If it is the will of the people that we go to a referendum to change the
constitution then it must be enshrined in the constitution and not in another
law. And so that is the difficulty I am having with the representation the Honourable
Member for Albert and the two legally trained people on the other side Mr. Speaker.”
Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“They know how to attack people but they can’t take criticism.”
[UDP Representatives exchanging words with Hon. Musa]
Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“Mr. Speaker, there they are resulting to insults and offensive language,
totally contrary to the Standing Orders of this House. They can’t take
it, when you tell them the truth about what’s happening.”
Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
“Tell us...how you betray the Belizean people.”
Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“It seems like I have riled up the government. They have all the power.
You all have all the power. I am simply stating what this bill is proposing
to do and why are they afraid for the Belizean people to hear it.
Mr. Speaker I really object to this unparliamentarily language that’s
being used today.”
[Dean Barrow talking, applause follows.]
Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“This is the behaviour of our Prime Minister Mr. Speaker. I understand
an application has been made to the Supreme Court...”
Hon. Dean Barrow,
[Interrupting Musa] “You are a traitor to this Belizean nation. You
will get no quarter from me. Not you.”
Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“Mr. Speaker the slings and arrows of great fortune and vindictiveness
I am used to from that Opposition, from that government. I am used to that Prime
Minister firing off all his slings and arrows. But I will not be intimidated
Mr. Speaker. I want him to know this and I want all the members to know this.
I will stand here because the people of Fort George put me here to defend their
interests and when I see that matter threatened, I will speak out.”
Hon. Dean Barrow,
“My remarks that I will make sitting here, from my seat, so as to
offend you Mr. Speaker or the rules of the House, there will be no restraint
because that member for Fort George, I consider to have betrayed the Belizean 
people in serial ways, in multiple ways. This is the man who signed a witness
statement, who did a witness statement against Krem, against the owner of Krem
who has been his friend for almost 40 years. That is the measure of the man
that sits over there and that used to lead this country, representing Fort George.
Him I will give no quarter.
I don’t think he has a clue as to how hated and reviled and disgusted
he is in this nation. And it is not personal. It is because of what he has done
we are grappling with all those, I can’t even call them contracts –
all those betrayals that he signed. Anyway Mr. Speaker let me content myself
with saying that him I will give no quarter.
Obviously he is either a fraud or a fool. He is a lawyer. He has been a
lawyer for a long long time, far longer than I and he ought to have known what
it took a layman, the Minister of the Public Service to point out to him. So
if he didn’t know it, as I said, he is a fool or at the very best an ignoramus
a lawyer. And if he did know it, he is a fraud.
The fundamental rights provisions in the constitution can only be altered
in the manner prescribed by the constitution. And the constitution in fact contains
such prescriptions. You get a three-fourths majority, the constitution says,
you wait ninety days, you have the Senate subscribe to it by a simple majority
and that’s how you can alter chapter 2 of the constitution. Any ordinary
law is subject to the constitution.
So when he passed the Referendum Act with that particular feature, again
he talked about misleading, from those days his proclivity for falsehood and
deceit was obvious. He put that in the Referendum Act knowing full well that
that was fool’s gold, that that was cosmetic window dressing and in fact
it was meaningless.
If you had known this, if you had been anything of a lawyer in 1999, you
would never have inserted a provision that was from the start unconstitutional.
That’s why we are taking it out because we don’t fool the public.”
The Referendum Amendment Bill was one of 7 bills takes for second and
third readings today. We’ll tell you more about the others later on.
Email
Print