And if you're confused between the BPM's redistricting case and the one brought by Enriquez and Ramlogan, one of the claimants, Paul Morgan, clarified the difference. He explained that their case is based on a simple question.
Paul Morgan, BPM
"It is like two buckets, one has 3/4 and the other has 5/8. Similar, I'm sure our attorney will speak on this also but our case is centered around schedule 1 of ROPA. It is asking the court a simple question, whether or not schedule 1 of ROPA comports with the constitution. If they say yes, then we lose and if they say no, the Elections and Boundaries has a responsibility to fix it because the Elections and Boundaries has no right to run an election that is illegal. I'll give you an example, the elections and boundaries is mandated by the constitution to run elections, no one else under the constitution can run an election in Belize, not the executive, they can't hire anybody else, it is the elections and boundaries commission that must run the elections. They cannot take anything, any schedule to run the elections, it must be by schedule 1, that is what our constitution say. It is like this, the prime minister cannot give the elections and boundaries commission an illegal order."
Sharon Pitts, Attorney, BPM
"It is our view and position that it has that live issue with respect to whether schedule 1of the representation of the people's act is contrary or in compliance with the constitution of Belize. With respect to the question you asked, claim #730 of 2024, just by the numeration predates the claim which I believe you referred to. It is open for the parties and for the court, it seems to me of its own discretion or violation if it takes judicial notice to consolidate or join the matters."
Email
Print