Since last week, 7News has been following the flurry of election petitions taken before the courts.
Well, we add another pair to that growing list tonight.
Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin has granted leave for UDP's Lee Mark Chang to bring an election petition against PUP's Party Leader and Representative for Freetown, Francis Fonseca.
And while that is the first court victory for the UDP, Chief Justice Benjamin also granted leave for PUP's Martin Galvez to bring his election petition against Mark King.
Later on, we'll tell you more about the Mark King Petition, but first, we take a look at Lee Mark Chang's one against Francis Fonseca.
Chang, who is being assisted by a registered voter from the Freetown Division, has submitted to the court that Fonseca should be disqualified as an Area Rep. He contends that Fonseca's agents, Albert Vaughn and Hugh Wellin Bodden, conducted bribery on behalf of their boss.
Chang further asserts that the election was close and if Fonseca's agents did not bribe the electorate, the results could have been very different. He was represented by attorney Michael Young.
Today, Young put forward several sworn affidavits by more than 5 persons who say that they witnessed the agents bribing persons to get their votes.
The respondents, Fonseca, Vaughn and Bodden, who are represented by attorneys Said Musa, Godfrey Smith, and Anthony Sylvester, have flat out denied the allegations which have been brought against them.
Musa further argued on behalf of the respondents that the evidence being presented is not well-put together, and that the persons are by their own admission, allied to the UDP. He says that this further lays doubt on them about the truth about their story.
Musa further submitted in court that if bribery was conducted - and he is not conceding that it did - Fonseca has categorically stated that he had absolutely no knowledge that the agents did anything. He further submits that Fonseca should not be punished for the actions that the men allegedly did or did not take.
Chief Justice Benjamin listened to the submissions of both of the senior counsels, and after considering their arguments, he has agreed that the evidence, in its preliminary stage, is very slim.
Nevertheless, he said that there is a serious group of questions being asked in this matter, and that it needs to be properly argued out the full election petition proceeding. And with that, he granted leave for the appellants to bring the election petition against Francis Fonseca.
After the judgement, we spoke to both lawyers about the points they made in court.
Here's what they told us:
Michael Young - Senior Counsel for the Respondents
"Bribery, of course, by its very nature is not something that is easy to prove. But in this case there were a number of affidavits; In fact there were about 7 affidavits or so."
Reporter
"One included a video recording also right?"
Michael Young - Senior Counsel for the Respondents
"One of them referred to a tape recording; a sound recording that when this person was receiving the money, the person said 'hold ya' and she still has that on her telephone."
Marion Ali, Reporter
"That was of the agent. Not the voice of Francis Fonseca."
Michael Young - Senior Counsel for the Respondents
"Oh no, let me make it clear that even in of grounds we are not saying that Francis Fonseca bribed anyone. We are not saying that any bribery that was committed was with his consent or knowledge. What we are saying is that agents of his bribed, but the representation of the people's act catches also that, and that, in fact, candidates themselves are responsible for the acts of their agents."
Said Musa
"Even if there was any evidence of bribery; that is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this was done with the knowledge or consent or authority of the candidate the Hon. Francis Fonseca, and, therefore, there is no ground for avoiding his election."
"I also stress that to establish a charge of bribery in a situation like this, against an agent of the candidate and to hold the candidate responsible for that, so to the extent of avoiding his election, you must show as well that he had some knowledge or that he consented to these actions. There was no evidence of this and that still remains our position even though leave was granted."
Michael Young - Senior Counsel for the Respondents
"It's a significant and historic decision really for Belize on a whole because there is this thinking that, well, money in elections is a must, and in fact, the culture and the position should be that money in an election is just simply wrong."
We must note several things. The first of them is that since Belize's Independence, this is the first election petition which is being granted on the allegation of bribery. All the previous ones have been thrown out.
Second, Chief Justice Benjamin has noted that the persons who have offered affidavit evidence are liable to be criminally charged because by their own admission, they accepted the bribes.
| 