Earlier in the newscast, we showed you our interviews with the attorney Eamon Courtenay and Attorney General Michael Peyrefitte in which they discuss yesterday's big judgment coming out of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Our conversation with Courtenay allowed us to ask him for his take on the Prime Minister's comments from last Friday's House Meeting. You'll remember how the Prime Minister publicly declared that the PUP's lawsuit against him has no effect because former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin did not give a written judgment before he went into retirement.
That's the case where the PUP was complaining that the PM misused what are known as "Special warrants" in the Ministry of Finance to authorize the public spending of 1.5 billion dollars, without prior parliamentary approval.
For context, here are the PM's comments, followed by Courtenay's comments as the attorney who led arguments before the Chief Justice against him:
Rt. Hon. Dean Barrow - Prime Minister "There is no judgment of the Chief Justice with respect to the case they took before him. He gave some oral decision, which is a non-decision because it has not been reduced to writing. It cannot now be reduced to writing because the Chief Justice is Functus. So, for them to talk about a lesson to be derived."
Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for Claimants "I think it is sad that Mr. Barrow would stoop that low to mislead the Belizean people and tell them that because the Chief Justice did not sign off on the judgment formally - perfect the judgment, in the language that we use - that it is a, quote, as he said, a 'non-decision'. Daniel, there is a case from the Caribbean Court of Justice, which comes from Belize, called the Queen against Henry 2018, paragraph 23, which says that the minute a judge pronounces an oral judgment, it takes effect, it's binding, and people have rights flowing from that, the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister said this country on Friday. Mr. Barrow knows that the rules of the Supreme Court say that once an order is pronounced, it is binding on the parties. He is trying to distract people away from what the Chief Justice held. The Chief Justice found that he spent 1.5 billion dollars, contrary to the constitution. He found that Mr. Barrow spent 1.5 billion contrary to the Finance and Audit Reform Act, which constitutes a criminal offense. That is what he wants us to forget."
Email
Print
For context, here are the PM's comments, followed by Courtenay's comments as the attorney who led arguments before the Chief Justice against him:
judgment, it takes effect, it's binding, and people have rights flowing from that, the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister said this country on Friday. Mr. Barrow knows that the rules of the Supreme Court say that once an order is pronounced, it is binding on the parties. He is trying to distract people away from what the Chief Justice held. The Chief Justice found that he spent 1.5 billion dollars, contrary to the constitution. He found that Mr. Barrow spent 1.5 billion contrary to the Finance and Audit Reform Act, which constitutes a criminal offense. That is what he wants us to forget."