CCJ revives challenge to Belize’s electoral boundaries

2026-03-27 - 20:14

Derek Achong The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has resuscitated a controversial case over the constitutionality of Belize’s electoral boundaries. On Monday, CCJ President Winston Anderson and judges Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Peter Jamadar, Chantal Ononaiwu, and Chile Eboe-Osuji upheld an appeal brought by an activist over a decision by Belize’s Court of Appeal to refuse to hear a challenge to the dismissal of his constitutional claim. The panel ruled that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have dismissed Jeremy Enriquez on technical grounds. The judges also took issue with the fact that the judge who first heard the case made a “wasted costs” order against Enriquez’s lawyer, Anand Ramlogan, SC, for pursuing the case. The outcome of the appeal means that the matter will now have to be considered by Belize’s Court of Appeal at a later date. In March last year, Enriquez and two other activists sought an injunction to stop the country’s general election, as they were dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s response to their request that Belize Prime Minister John Briceño give them advance notice of his decision to advise the Governor General on the dissolution of the country’s National Assembly to facilitate the poll. Two further amended applications were made after Briceño announced the decision and set March 12 for the election. In deciding the applications, Justice Tawanda Hondora took issue with two affidavits purportedly sworn by Enriquez in support of the applications. He noted that it appeared that Enriquez’s signature and that of the High Court Commissioner, who purportedly witnessed his deposition, were digitally added to the court document. Justice Hondora said: “There is more than a whiff that someone was given digital copies of the deponent’s and the Commissioner’s signatures and inserted those into the affidavit said to be that of Mr Enriquez and the other documents used in this matter.” “If that be the case, it raises numerous questions of who did that, under what authority they did so, and why they considered it necessary and appropriate to use digital templates,” he added. Justice Hondora noted that Ramlogan participated in the hearing before him via video conferencing as he was not in Belize, and that Enriquez referred to a law firm in Belize City. He pointed out that Ramlogan did not refer to the law firm when he announced who was representing the trio at the hearing. Based on the anomalies he found, which he described as inexplicable, Justice Hondora decided to disregard the affidavits and consequently dismiss the applications. The election was held as scheduled, with Briceño’s People’s United Party (PUP) securing a second term in office by a landslide. Enriquez appealed the findings, as Ramlogan denied any wrongdoing. However, his challenge was dismissed by Belize’s Court of Appeal on the basis that it was premature, as Justice Hondora had not “perfected” his order. In its ruling, the CCJ found that the timing of the appeal did not invalidate it, noting that litigants should not be denied access to justice based on procedural technicalities. It also found that the order against Ramlogan was unjustified. In a press release, Enriquez hailed the outcome. “The CCJ has ensured that the substantive constitutional issues—fair representation, electoral equality, and judicial conduct—will be heard and decided,” Enriquez said. “The legal hurdles and technicalities could have frustrated and discouraged us, but they did not, as we maintained our focus: no political party, no prime minister, no minister of government—no one—is above the supreme law of the nation,” he added. He also thanked Ramlogan for pursuing the appeal. “The decision not only restores Ramlogan’s professional standing but also sends a strong message across the region about protecting lawyers who courageously defend public-interest cases,” Enriquez said. He said he is eagerly awaiting the eventual hearing of the appeal.