Tonight, half of the country is under Hurricane Watch for Rina - and we'll have all the details on that shortly and tell you what you need to be on the lookout for....But first, tonight, the Ninth Amendment has still not been made into law.
That's because the Court Of Appeal has stopped the Government from getting the assent of the Governor General -that's the final step for any piece of legislation - basically when he signs it into law.
All weekend, unknown to many in the public, there's been a race between the judiciary on one hand and the legislature and the executive on the other. The judiciary - specifically the Court of Appeal has been trying to outpace the senate and the government - and to do so, it had to hold unprecedented Saturday and Sunday sessions.
That's because - as we reported on Friday - the attorneys for Ricardo Castillo and Vaughan Gill - under the cover of the Ashcroft Alliance - got the Court of Appeal to meet on Saturday to consider their case. That's after they were rejected by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court on Friday morning. They had asked the CJ to grant an injunction blocking the passage of the ninth into law until a referendum is held. That was refused but attorney for Gill and Castillo, Godfrey Smith got the fastest appeal hearing probably in history; a single judge of the court of appeal Douglas Mendes agreed to hear it on Saturday morning. Why Saturday? Because the Senate was meeting on Monday to pass it - and after that it would sent to the GG for his assent.
So time was of the essence and all three branches of government were in a race. We were at the court all weekend, and all through to this evening. We start on Saturday morning where Jules Vasquez tried to get Lord Peter Goldsmith to comment on camera:..
Jules Vasquez Reporting
Before noon on Saturday, Lois Young representing the government and a team of crown counsels filed out of the courtroom, followed by former British Attorney General, Lord Peter Goldsmith and Godfrey Smith.
Jules Vasquez
"Lord Peter Goldsmith may we have a comment sir?"
Lord Peter Goldsmith, QC -Attorney for Vaughan Gill & Ricardo Castillo
"I don't comment on current cases."
Jules Vasquez
"No, or is it that you don't comment to the media in Belize?"
Lord Peter Goldsmith
"No, I don't comment on current cases at all."
Jules Vasquez
"Why not sir? it's such an important public matter."
Lord Peter Goldsmith
"Here is Godfrey Smith who I am sure will comment."
Jules Vasquez
"We would like one from you sir...."
Jules Vasquez
"Mr. Smith may we have a comment from you?"
Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney for Vaughan Gill & Ricardo Castillo
"A brief comment."
Jules Vasquez
"Sir why aren't Ricardo Castillo and Vaughan Gill here today if it is such a public interest matter?"
Godfrey Smith
"It's not usual, in many cases appellants don't show at all. They properly instructed their lawyers and we are bringing the case forward."
Jules Vasquez
"But sir shouldn't we just call it what it is that this is the Ashcroft Alliance contorting the justice system to its ends?"
Godfrey Smith
"There are 21,000 regular electors who have signed a petition, they believe that they have a right to have a referendum before the Bill is passed and as lawyers we are seeking to get a court declaration on that. That's all."
Smith, Goldsmith and their assistants went to get ready to argue for that declaration on Sunday afternoon at 3:00.
On Sunday, arguments finished at 6:00 in the evening:
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"Lots of things - it's crazy."
Reporter
"No comment?"
Godfrey Smith
"No comment."
Lord Peter Goldsmith
"I don't comment on current cases."
And as Goldsmith's legal assistants clattered off into the street lamp's sickly reddish glow. This morning at a few minutes before 6:00 am, they were right back at court, those suitcases full of legal documents, as Goldsmith and Godfrey Smith basked in the early morning's amber light.
The Court was ready for its earliest hearing ever.
No Belizean court had never convened so early in the morning - as none had ever convened on Sunday either and while they had gotten the hearing Goldsmith and Smith knew it would be hard to get an injunction restraining the executive.
For the government side, Lois Young and Magali Perdomo - they knew their client wanted the Ninth signed into law today while Goldsmith's research team had those suitcases full of legal documents.
At ten past six, all parties started moving from an early morning sunning to the court to complete the third in a session of unprecedented hearings.
Justice Mendes handed down his decision at 9:30 and Goldsmith retreated while the Government side felt it gave them the upper hand because there was no restraint on the Senate meeting:
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"It doesn't relate to the Senate at all. The Senate can go ahead and sign."
Jules Vasquez
"So the parties restrained are the Attorney General and the Governor General - the Attorney General from handed it to the GG for assenting."
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"That is correct."
Jules Vasquez
"And now you all are asking for a suspended injunction. The injunction is still until 4pm tomorrow. What would have been the purpose of suspending the injunction until the full court is moved?"
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"Because if it was suspended, then we would have gone ahead with our application. We will go ahead with our application - to set it aside and we suspect that the court will rule on that before 4pm tomorrow."
Jules Vasquez
"Now it's been a very unusual weekend, we've been here on Saturday and Sunday and we came here on 6am on Monday. In court you described it as unseemly haste. What do you make of these extraordinary unprecedented hearings?"
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"I have no idea what to make of it. All I know is the application was filed on Friday and we were summoned to court on Saturday, brought back to on Sunday and brought back to court this morning at 6am. I have no idea why it had to be done in that haste but that's the way it is."
"The application was never to restrain the Senate so why was there such a haste to have it heard today? I think that what they were trying to do was restrain the Senate by a back wind - by a side wind - by a back door - by somehow having an injunction on someone to stop the Senate from meeting but that's not possible. The Senate wasn't made a party to these proceedings."
Marion Ali, Reporter
"You've made your arguments over a few grounds over the entire weekend. Can you tell us what those grounds are?"
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"Basically there is no obligation to have a referendum and that this referendum can be held at any time for whatever purpose. It won't stop the legislative process. We've said that about 20 million times all over in the lower court and in this court."
"They try to say that there was an expectation that it would stop the process but there was no such expectation. The Prime Minister has always said, 'I will abide the outcome of the public consultation process.' That's the process that goes from district to district. He never once referred to any referendum. In particular a referendum where they pay $2 for every signature."
Jules Vasquez
"Presumably you all are going to ask for a hearing of the full court immediately. The Justice of Appeals Mendes indicated that he does not expect that the application by Vaughan Gill and Ricardo Castillo will have much success going forward."
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"He said clearly, he said the appeal stands very little chance of success."
Jules Vasquez
"But it is an embarrassment for the government that it is being blocked - the executive is being restrained from putting the 9th into the law. That is an embarrassment. The court comes in and says don't do it."
Lois Young, SC Government's Attorney
"You mean until 4 o' clock tomorrow? I don't think that's an embarrassment particularly when you hear the background to that order where the judge said 'I am only granting this injunction so that the full court can review my decision because I don't think I am wrong, but I may be wrong, so let me get the benefit of 3 judges instead on me alone.' That's all he said. It's dead for them. It's been a whirlwind over nonsense."
Those three judges met at 10:00 and again adjourned at 11:30 to consider evidence:
Denys Barrow, SC Attorney for Government
"We are waiting until 3 o' clock for the full court to hear the application once more for an injunction."
Jules Vasquez
"The Senate has now concluded its meeting and the only thing now is the Bill only awaits the GG's assent, but the status right now is that the AG (Attorney General) is restrained from taking it to the GG for assent. Am I correct?"
Denys Barrow, SC Attorney for Government
"I would imagine that that is subsumed in the order which was made but it is something that I would need to study and I would not simply assume that to be the case and so I would want to study that order and see what effect it has and I would also want to study that order and see if it enjoins the proper person from progressing this legislation. As you know the Governor General was not restrained."
Jules Vasquez
"It has to be a very undesirable state of affairs even for a temporary injunction where the judiciary is restraining the executive from carrying out the wishes of the legislature."
Denys Barrow, SC Attorney For Government
"The Privy Council made a pronouncement and said that it is an exceptional course to take that a court has to be extremely careful in doing something of that sort and should not lightly, or as it were, easily, readily do it. They need to hesitate greatly before doing it. I do not think - in fairness to Justice Mendes that he was purporting to do that. He refuses to grant the injunction but he thought that in fairness he would hold the position until the claimants are able to make an application to the full court."
"Justice Mendes said that the case - the application has no real prospect of success. This is an expression in a hollowed phrase made by Justices of Appeal when they are about to dismiss an application for leave to appeal. Luckily for them they do not need leave, our law provides for a direct appeal. If they had needed leave this would have been dead. Now why are they protracting this matter? We would be making the submission to the court that this is a political matter. This is not a legal matter. We would be putting an affidavit to the court indicating who the claimants are and we will be establishing that this is not as though it were being brought by some legitimate organization. These are two political operatives at a very senior and advanced level in the opposition political party. The motives are therefore simply to derail or to hold back this legislation for as long as those who are in political opposition to it can manage."
Email
Print