7 News Belize

Senate Votes No On Joshua Perdomo - But Is It Only Symbolic?
posted (October 9, 2019)
There was a fiery debate at today's Senate Meeting in Belmopan, and most of the controversy involved government write-offs for monies that they can't ever collect on. There were 5 write-off motions, and 4 of them sparked a back and forth from the different Senators. But the biggest one of the day was the House-approved write-off for Joshua Perdomo.

And, the debate became so heated that it ended with the Opposition senators and all the social partner senators voting down this write-off.

For only the second time in memory, the nay's had it in Belize's Parliament. And it's all because of the influence of Osmany Salas, as the 13th Senator. Before he was appointed, the Government majority always allowed them to pass all its motions in the upper parliament.

But, today's proceedings clearly demonstrated to the nation that without the swaying vote of at least one of the social partner senators, the Barrow Administration no longer has majority control. So, we turn now to the Government motion that was defeated today.

The Government was seeking to finalize a write-off of just over $40,000 for Joshua Perdomo. By now, you'll know that the Barrow Administration has been taking tough criticism for attempting to clean up that one.

That's after Perdomo, who is the son of the Cabinet Secretary, Carlos Perdomo, skipped out on his study leave arrangement with the Ministry of National Security. He was to pursue his master's degree, and he was given a significant portion of his salary while he was away. The problem is that instead of honoring his contractual commitment, he never returned. And so, the Government is saying that it has to write it off.

Here's how the Senate reacted to that one in today's debate:

Hon. Osmany Salas, NGO Senator
"We have some major issues with this write-off motion. The bond was signed on May 15th, 2019. The study leave period was 27 months, which if I am calculating properly Mr. Perdomo should have started to pay in 2012, 7 years ago. In the motion it states that no payment has been made and efforts to locate him proves futile. The solicitor general had advised as the motion states 'for Mr. Perdomo to do monthly payments of $1,000 until payments was made in full. Very reasonable and yet no effort was made to make any payment. The efforts to locate him proves futile.' Really? Futile. Do we really believe that? Bond agreements in this case there was a surety and I must say looking through the bond agreement I saw some instances where it was sloppily put together. In the section where in the preamble to the agreement were issued state surety, a street address was inserted and not the name of a person. How that was allowed to get through, or how nobody picked up on that? Who knows? I don't know what happened there. But the fact is that there was 7 years to try and collect at least for payments to start. So a lot of time has passed."

Hon. Ashley Rocke, Senator for Churches
"This went home hard with the churches. We talked and there were 2 main issues that haunted us and that one being: the whole issue of morality, first of all. Because if nobody will stand for morality, the church has to. But then the statute of limitations was also an issue with us. I was given myriads of information to read and to try to understand. But in dealing with the matter of the statute of limitation, that limitation act 170 and I'm no lawyer, but I believe that I learnt to read when I went back to pursue my theological degree and I read a particular one that was given to me of a supreme court scene that had taken place in 1980. We were able to settle our minds relating to the statute of limitation that it wasn't barred and the gentleman in question is still liable to the Belize coffers and needs to come and pay his money and I believe with all due respect to my prime minister, this was he should make sure he collect that money from that man. With that submission I/we/church have said no to that thing."

Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, attorney general
"Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, of the 6 money motions that we have here today, we will probably spend the majority of the day on this one, because make no mistake about it, the Opposition is clearly making politics off of this write-off motion. Strictly politics. Because had this person been names Joshua Smith, we wouldn't be analyzing it in such detail and seeking outside competent attorneys in the giving in your network. This Joshua Perdomo is Carlos Perdomo's son and Said Perdomo's cousin. Make no mistake about it. That is the only reason why any of them are interested in this particular write-off. Mr. Perdomo's son should not be treated in any special way simply because he is Mr. Perdomo's son. No special treatment must be given to him, but then you shouldn't treat him differently that you would treat anybody in this situation either, simply because he is Mr. Perdomo's son. The government, as is standard in these cases, when it believes it cannot get back the money it has put forward, would write it off. It doesn't mean that Mr. Joshua Perdomo has gotten away scotch free. You think that Mr. Perdomo could ever work for the public service again or get any serious job in the public service again if he fails to make good on this? A writing off doesn't mean that you cannot use it still as a bargaining chip at some point in the future. We can still get back the money, unless Mr. Perdomo has accepted that he will never return to Belize and never work for Belize again, which would be most unfortunate for both himself and for Belize."

Hon. Michel Chebat, P.U.P. Senator
"How can the attorney general stand before this senate and says that his office advised that this is a contract and the limitation period has expired, when just before him the Hon. Senator Rocke quoted a supreme court case that has specifically decided on a similar point and the supreme court has ruled in a previous similar instance that this is a specialty and the limitation period is 12 years. I don't know what law school the attorney general went to...Excuse me your honor, excuse me Mr. President, I have the floor. He has had his turn to speak. And what he has represented to this Senate is not correct."

Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"This is a 2011 contract. That's a 1976 case; how can it be the same thing? How can a court in 1976 say what this contract means? Come on Micho."

Hon. Michel Chebat
"Mr. President, please. He has had his turn to speak and he is being disingenuous and he has misrepresented to the Senate. This matter is not being raised only because it is Joshua Perdomo that is under the scrutiny. The fact is if it were Joshua Smith; no Joshua Smith could get a forty thousand dollar bond to go study nowhere. You have to either be a minister's son or a political affiliate to be able to get things like this. Why is it that a claim has not been passed against Joshua Perdomo to recover these monies? Why has not that happened? Why has the surety to the bond signed by his has not been asked to repay this bond? Why is he getting preferential treatment when there are thousands of students across the country who struggle every single year to be able to pay their school fees? What puts him in a special position? The only thing that put him there is because he is the son of the cabinet secretary. That's all."

Hon. Dr. Luis Zabaneh, PUP Senator
"The Belizean people are outraged, students are outraged by this, because they see an arrangement here and we are talking about whether or not we are dealing with 6 years or 12 years during which time you can take this and consider it that now we can write it off. I would leave that for those who want to discuss that matter to get into the details of that, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Belizean students out there and parents do not have this privilege when they are going to attend UB or any university or going abroad. They don't have this privilege and that's why they are outraged."

Hon. Mark Lizarraga, Business Senator
"If there is a write-off for the poor farmers who are suffering right now. I congratulate the government by the way for working with the banks, with the Central Bank in trying through the ministry of agriculture and I congratulate the minister in front of us in trying to find some reprieve for people that needs it. Work with the people, extend the loans. Maybe this young man needed more time. I don't know what the instances were, but you acknowledge that you owe, you make `good on your payments and it is the government's responsibility to try and collect the people's money, especially when you have a guarantee."

Hon. Marvin Mora, Labour Senator
"We don't want to give the impression and I am sure the government representatives here wouldn't want to give the impression that it is the norm for government of Belize to just follow through with a write-off and it over with. I am sure that's not what they have intended. I am sure that their issue is a issue of legality and of course the due process in terms of how they are going to go about collecting this money and whether they can or cannot."

There was a division called on this one even though all the Government Senators voted yes, the 3 Opposition Senators and all the social partners voted no. But, at the end of the day, it does not stop the write-off. That's because this is a money motion, and since the House already approved it, the Senate approval is not necessary. Meaning, the vote, essentially was symbolic.

We are told that there is only one other instance where this has happened, and that's when Senator Ashley Rocke's vote against a piece of Government business about 3 years swung the division against the Barrow administration.

Home | Archives | Downloads/Podcasts | Advertise | Contact Us

7 News Belize