Last week, 7News told you about the failed election petition by the People's United Party on behalf of Yolanda Schakron. We also reported the impending application for another petition on behalf of her brother, Martin Galvez, which has also been filed against the Lake I Area Rep., Mark King.
Well tonight, the news is that another application was brought before the courts by the People's United Party. This is on behalf of the PUP Standard Bearer, David Craig, against the duly sworn-in Area Representative for the Albert Division, Herman Longsworth.
Remember that construction being done on the Marion Jones Sporting Complex? Well, the honourable Longsworth is the one who got the contract to build it.
And the case argued in its preliminary stages before the Supreme Court today was that the contract to build that same fence disqualified Herman Longsworth to run for elected office, and also disqualifies him from being a member of the House of Representatives.
According to Senior Counsel Said Musa, L&V Construction Management Limited, to which Longsworth is the Managing Director, is still contracted by Ministry of Youth and Sports to build a perimeter fence for the Marion Jones Sporting Complex.
According to Musa, under Section 58 of the Belize Constitution, this disqualifies him because he did not declare to the public in the form of a newspaper publishing that he has interests in the said contract.
The PUP argues that this is a serious question to ask because an Area Rep who ascends to a Ministerial office must be uncompromised when dealing with matters of the public, and that they cannot fairly do so when their interest overlaps with the interest of the people.
The respondents, Herman Longsworth and Hugo Miranda, the Returning Officer for the Albert Constituency, contend that there is no disqualification. They were represented by Senior Counsel Michael Young and Crown Counsel Magali Perdomo from the Attorney General's Office. Their position is that the L&V Company's contract with the Ministry of Sports ended on April 19, 2011.
Longsworth says that he has completed the initial building of the fence and all obligations in relation to the contract, which makes it officially ended.
Both sides argued their points before Justice Arana for about an hour and a half, and after considering their arguments, she ruled that the appellants have provided enough grounds that the matter must be heard in the full proceedings of an election petition.
After she delivered her ruling, the media spoke to both attorneys outside the court and asked them to explain the points that they made in this morning's hearing.
Here's what they told us:
Said Musa - Senior Counsel for Appellant
"We submitted that there is a subsisting contract with Mr. Herman Longsworth and the Government of Belize with respect of the building of the perimeter fence at the Marion Jones Stadium, and that at the time of the election, this contract existed. We submitted that under Section 58 of the Constitution, the only way he could have avoid a disqualification was if he had published in a newspaper, for the electorate to see, that he had this contract with the Government. The Constitution is saying that only then, he can be excused, or the disqualification would not take effect. What we were able to show is that - at least to obtain leave - is that there is an arguable case, that a contract subsists - even to this day - and therefore the case can be made that he is disqualified. If we so establish at the petition level - which is the next stage now - then Mr. Longsworth will be disqualified and no doubt, the court would order a bi-election. But we are far away from that as yet. We were able to show the court with exhibits that at some stage during the performance of this contract, Mr. Longsworth applied for a duty exemption on all the equipment that he used in the carrying out of this contract for the building of this fence. He then offered a slight deduction from his fees that he would be collecting - or what the company would be collecting for the building - in return for getting all these exemptions. The correspondence also shows that he did receive full GST and import duty exemptions on a whole battery of equipment, as well as an exemption on a personal vehicle for Mr. Longsworth. And we argued that this constituted indeed a separate contract that he had with the Government, and that to this day, the duties haven't been paid, which indicates further that the contract is not yet complete."
Jose Sanchez - Channel 5 News
"So what role did the letter play that Mr. Longsworth submitted to the court in his affidavit that it was complete?"
Said Musa
"Well, the court considered it, but the judge ruled that there is an arguable case. I need to point out that the judge hasn't ruled that Mr. Longsworth is disqualified. She has ruled that we have an arguable case to establish in this issue of whether he is disqualified from being a member of the House."
Michael Young - Senior Counsel for the Respondents
"The judge ruled that the case is arguable, and so, the petition is going to be presented, and we feel that we are confident that we have a good case. The application documents were served on Mr. Longsworth just yesterday evening, and so, we in turn quickly prepared an affidavit - in fact, I worked until quite late last night to do that - to show that this is really a clear issue that there was a contract for certain works to be done, which was signed back in August of 2009, but that contract was completed. The works under that contract were performed, and that was certified by the architects and the designers, Anthony Thurton and Associates, and they have provided a letter to that effect. So our fundamental position is that there was a contract between two parties, and the two parties are saying that this contract is at an end. It ended - at the very latest - on the October 24, 2011, and if the architects responsible for the carrying out of the contract, are also saying that it was finished on the 24th of October, 2011, then that contract must be finished. That is our position."
Marion Ali - Love News
"But the judge doesn't agree with you."
Michael Young
"Clearly, and that is entirely the court's duty. The judge listens to both sides, and the judge determines who the judge thinks is correct in the particular application. It doesn't mean that the court is saying that they agree with the position of the petitioner. The court is saying that this is a serious issue, and that there is a ground for having this matter ventilated, vetted before the court, and so it will be dealt with."
Jose Sanchez - Channel 5 News
"Mr. Young, in regards to the lay-man's point of view, they would look at the fence and say that the fence is not complete. They can clearly say that it is not there. Does that play a role with regards to the contract?"
Michael Young
"I made the point in court that the documents which were presented by them are not complete. As a matter of fact, it only amounted to just a couple of pages. Contract drawings and papers must be a whole lot of documents that include the exact description of the works to be done. I'm saying that, even looking at their documents, you can't really determine whether there remain things to be done because it all depends on what both parties have put in documents, and those are the details of the things that are to be done. The architect is saying that what was to be done has been done. These things have to be proven by documentation. It is not a matter of somebody just picking up a camera, going somewhere, and taking some pictures. This was in fact phase 1 of the contract, which suggests that there will be further phases. It might be that you have - and I don't know - it might be that you have other works to be performed, which might impact on the fence. I don't really know. The point is that what the court has to go on, would be the material which is presented to the court, and that material was seriously deficient - in my view."
There are several important points to note. Firstly, this is the first of this season of election petitions to be granted, so it goes further than Yolanda Schakron's attempt from last week.
Secondly, as noted in the interview, this is just an initial victory for the PUP. The election petition itself will need to go through its process, and the appellants must win their case for the election result to be voided. If they win the case, a bi-election in the Albert Division would be called.
And finally, no date has been set as yet where the full petition will be heard.
On another sidebar, according the initial proceedings in court, the Government of Belize paid $2 million in fees for the building of the perimeter fence around the Marion Jones Sporting Complex.
Email
Print