This afternoon, Espat granted the press an interview to discuss his successful appeal, and why he thinks that he's on the way to proving that the standing orders were not properly followed, making his suspension from the House unlawful.
He said that he has personal reasons for pursuing this case, but he also wants a precedent to be established on how these types of suspensions are supposed to be done:
Hon. Julius Espat- Claimant/Appellant
"When we took the claim to court, government's only defense was that the judiciary did not have any authority to make decisions over parliament and the legislator, meaning Ms. Speaker's decision was final and the judges had no ability to change that. So, that was their only defense. And so, the Chief Justice at the time decided that he wouldn't hear the claim because of that specific issue. Again, we did not agree and so we went to the second level which was the appeals court. Basically the appeals court struck that down based on all the evidence that our senior attorney Marshalleck had provided. And that is why I insist that precedence is important to be set. There is precedence in the common wealth that it can be heard. You have to understand that my rights as a Belizean citizen and as a sitting parliamentarian was affected in the house. That is one; and two, my constitutional rights was also affected. And so, on that basis the appeals court decided that one, the judge erred in his decision and two, that they are giving an order to the supreme court to hear the case again but the only difference this time is that it be presided over by a different judge. They haven't specified which judge. To us that is comforting because all we have to do now is resubmit our claim and then government has to now come up with a different defense. I don't know what defense they will come up with because it is quite clear that the procedure was not followed. There was no vote in the House and that has to be done."
Reporter
"What remedies are you seeking? Or would you be seeking now before the supreme court as a result of what has happened?"
Hon. Julius Espat
"One, we want to make sure that the decision that was done was erroneous. So, that is setting a precedence that even if you are the leader of a country in the case of the Prime Minister or if you are the Speaker of the House within parliament, you are also to abide by the rule of law. That is one; two, that I be paid back what was taken away from me. My salary was deducted for a large period of time and any other claim that we might decide. We haven't decided on that as yet. But the most important, above all is to set the rule of law in place. I think that is important. It can't be done by means of rhetoric, PUP says or UDP says or when I get into government I will change it. That, in the eyes of the people, becomes insignificant. So, now we are relying on the third branch of the government, which is the judiciary, to set precedence as to what is right and what is wrong and for it to not happen again."
Reporter
"Are you still as confident today of your case as the day when it happened?"
Hon. Julius Espat
"Yes, I am even more so now. My attorney is even more confident than I am. I am skeptical because I am not a legal mind and that is why I don't like going to court because you never know what can happen. But my attorney is extremely confident. That gives me a level of comfort."
Email
Print