Over 500 Belizeans turned out to the first consultation on the Belize Constitution (Ninth) Amendment Bill, held at The Holy Redeemer Parish Hall in Belize City on Wednesday night. The atmosphere was thick with political tensions, as both the ruling United Democratic Party (UDP) and the Opposition People's United Party (PUP) drew supporters to the venue to cheer on their differing stances on the proposed bill.
John Saldivar, the acting chairman of the Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee, which led last night's consultation, said that of all the constitutional amendments they have made, this has been "the most discussed" and has "evoked the most interest..."
There were notably more people who spoke from the floor against the proposed 9th amendment than those who spoke in favor of it. Political party reps at the head table expressed positions that were split completely down party lines - "yes" for the UDP and "no" for the PUP.
Some of those who spoke from the floor were aligned with either of the two mass parties. The third parties did not make a visible showing at the Belize City consultation.
Anthony Sylvestre, legal advisor to the Opposition People's United Party, called on the UDP to cease its "naked power grab" and remove the offending changes proposed, particularly the language to shut out the court's jurisdiction.
While the PUP brought strong-talk, the UDP mobilized many more heads and they appeared as if in campaign mode with party political T-shirts. Their officials went the extra mile to print promotional T-shirts that call on Belizeans to support the amendment, "Utilities for Belizeans." These were circulated beforehand and at the consultation. (We are not sure who picked up the tab.)
Caught in the fray were ordinary citizens and representatives of the social partners, some of who shied away from posing their questions or making comments, for fear of humiliation from political supporters in the isles, whose boisterous heckling and booing oftentimes drowned the voices of opposition against the proposed bill.
A classic case of this was experienced by Cicely Kelly, who declared herself to be neither UDP nor PUP. She underscored the point that the elected representatives of Parliament have been elected to govern, not to rule. She said "no" to the 9th Amendment, but the hecklers would not permit much of her words to be heard either by those attending the event or those listening on-air via live broadcast.
The distractions failed, however, to overshadow the overwhelming voice of concern over the proposed alterations of the Constitution that would purport to block court enquiries into future Constitutional amendments.
Lionel Smith, a law student who supports the move to put the utilities into government hands, raised a question on the possible implications of the amendment: "Can we confidently cross our hearts that there won't be other laws that would interfere with our way of life?"
There were multiple appeals from the floor for the government to put the matter to a referendum to allow the people to express their will on this matter.
"People seem to forget that there was an election in 2008. That was when this government received the mandate of the people," responded Saldivar. "And this government not only received a mandate of the people - it received a three-fourths majority mandate of the people."
Under the Constitution, the ruling party can use that majority to alter the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in section 2 of the constitution, and no referendum is required in law before they do so.
Saldivar said that, "The power that these people [the opponents of the bill] want to give to the court will allow the court to overturn the amendment, even after, if it is passed after a referendum."
The Barrow administration has contended that as long as constitutional amendments are made via the correct procedure, such as obtaining that three-fourth majority support, they cannot be touched by any court of law.
One speaker from the floor said that technically, Prime Minister Dean Barrow has said that with the 9th Amendment, he has the power to declare himself prime minister for life. Saldivar responded sharply that he would not allow the public forum to be used to pass on mistruths.
What is more telling than the ratio of opponents to proponents, is the fact that all the interest groups and associations who weighed in, spoke against the Section 69 amendment (which says that no one can challenge any change to the constitution "on any ground whatsoever" once Parliament follows the right process in passing it).
Particularly concerned are the social partners who have representation in the upper House of Parliament, the Senate. Among them are the Belize Council of Churches and The National Trade Union Congress of Belize.
The Belize Bar Association and Belizeans for Justice and Citizens for Safety also registered their positions.
Neither the churches, unions nor the private sector support the 9th Amendment. The Belize Chamber of Commerce, which has gone on record to express its disagreement with the 9th Amendment, did not speak at the consultation. We understand that it has, though, submitted a paper to the National Assembly stating its position.
The social partners are collectively concerned that the proposed change to Section 69 has the potential to lead the way for future changes in the Constitution that would negatively alter citizens' rights beyond legal challenge, stripping the citizenry of a very important protective mechanism enshrined in the judiciary for the protection of civil liberties and human rights.
"As far as we are concerned on the government side, no right is being taken away from any citizen...," asserted chairman Saldivar.
Saldivar said that as the Constitution now stands, your rights can be taken away if these rights prejudice the freedom and rights of others and/or it is in the public interest.
"This amendment is in the public interest," he declared.
Jackie Willoughby-Sanchez, of the National Trade Union Congress of Belize and the Public Service Union, said that whereas the unions are in absolute support of the government owning the utilities, they are very concerned about the planned alteration to Section 69.
"If, in fact, we are gearing this at whomever, that they cannot come and challenge in court, why not make this more specific to the claiming of utilities as opposed to making [it] so broad?" Sanchez-Willoughby questioned.
Canon Leroy Flowers, president of the Belize Council of Churches, said that they are concerned about proposed changes to section 2, in addition to section 69 of the Belize Constitution. Section 2's changes add a provision that declare that sections within the same Constitution cannot be voided for inconsistency.
Even if the positions of the social partners remain unchanged, the United Democratic Party has the numbers at both levels of Parliament to have its way. It has the required simple majority in the Senate, in addition to a supermajority below.
As the law stands now, the court has the power to grant a stay, to hold back the hands of members of the executive - ministers of government, from taking the bill to the Governor-General, so that he cannot sign it into law until the court is able to make a finding on the matters in question.
That is the essence of the case that has been lodged by the British Caribbean Bank against the Government at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). They are asking the court to bar ministers from procuring the Governor General's signature until further order of the court, because they are challenging the July 4, 2011, re-nationalization of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL).
Additionally, the Government is challenging a recent Court of Appeal ruling which overturned the 2009 nationalization of BTL, although it has also moved to issue new provisions under the Belize Telecommunications Act to retake BTL. It is moving further, now, to enshrine the nationalization into the Belize Constitution-which is what has sparked the current debate.
Before the public had its say on the proposed bill, Solicitor General Cheryl Krusen delivered a slide presentation to expound on the legal features of the proposal.
At the start of the event, chairman Saldivar said the discussion is "healthy, useful" - but about 40 minutes into the comments and questions segment, he lost control of the proceedings and had to briefly suspend the sitting.
Solicitor General Krusen said the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the government maintains majority ownership and control of the public utility companies "at all times."
Krusen also said, however, that the Constitution is "living" and has to be changed to adapt to the times. She also cited the case of Trinidad and Tobago, which has, since Independence, "thrown out" its old constitution and replaced it with the new.
She did not highlight the fact that with the right number of votes from elected members of Parliament, any part of the Constitution, including the parts enshrining nationalization of public utilities, can be undone. Nowhere in the bill does it say what percentage of votes is required to alter nationalization provisions. An attorney we spoke with said that it appears that only a simple majority is required to undo the nationalization clauses.
The organization Belizeans for Justice, in a press release reaching our news desk hours before the consultation, said that the change in the constitution should only be allowed if the people agree via a referendum. They say that they do support the nationalization, but are concerned about the clause which purports to strip access to courts for constitutional challenges.
"Access to justice through the courts is the cornerstone of our democracy," the organization says.
Krusen said that once the proper procedure is applied, a constitutional change passed by Parliament is "absolutely valid."
She said that at the end of the day, changes still have to be in agreement with the Constitution. If they are not, then they can be challenged.
"There is absolutely no loss of rights to the courts," said Krusen. "I've have been practicing for the past 30 years and I can tell you... that is not true. It is simply not true."
Senior Counsel Lisa Shoman, who said she was speaking on behalf of more than 120 members of the Bar Association, who have a collective legal wisdom of about 6 or 7 hundred years, read their position into the record.
Speaking specifically of the proposed changes to Sections 2 and 69, Shoman said, "The Bar calls on government to withdraw its proposal in its entirety."
As for the new Section 145, which sets out the nationalization clauses, she said that the Bar's position is that Government should withdraw the proposed amendment or make such amendments as may be necessary or sufficient to access courts in accordance with section 17 of the Constitution.
When Shoman pointed out that none of the other clauses in the Constitution that purport to limit court enquiries into certain acts of the other two arms of government, the executive and the judiciary, use the words "on any ground whatsoever," the heckling and booing began.
"That is new language which is being added to the Constitution. Words ... have meaning," Shoman declared.
Gilroy Usher, Jr., son of the Port Loyola PUP political aspirant, said that with the 9th Amendment in place, the Barrow administration can bring back the proposals in the 8th Amendment, such as preventative detention, and citizens won't be able to challenge it in court. He also said that the Barrow administration should be focusing on fulfilling manifesto promises, addressing poverty and other social ills, and described Port Loyola as one of the City's most neglected areas.
"The time for you to express that concern is at election time," Saldivar responded to Usher. "Right now we are talking about the 9th Amendment."
Loyalists of UDP's Port Loyola area representative, Hon. Anthony "Boots" Martinez, who had bussed hundreds to the consultation, forcing a traffic diversion, heckled and booed him, as well.
"There are many, many, many people who don't know what the Constitution really, really is," said John Brackett, representing Belizeans for Justice and Citizens of Safety. He also expressed concerns on the proposed limits to court redress, and said that the organizations do not support the 9th Amendment.
Poet, political aspirant and activist, Erwin X, said that he was initially barred entry to the consultation venue on the claim that the place was too full. He later got assistance to gain access, but described the refusal of entry as "a derailment of the process."
Erwin X questioned: How can the government say the Constitution will not be amended so our rights will not be infringed when we are living in infringement right now?
Deborah Miller asked where the person was who presented the proposed 9th Amendment: "Do I see him in this building? No." (That person is Prime Minister Dean Barrow, who has been on personal leave in Los Angeles.)
In response to her, Saldivar said that the bill already has the support of National Assembly members; it is not an initiative of Mr. Barrow.
"Each and every one of us in the National Assembly supports this bill. I didn't say you, us - you are not a part of us," he commented.
Although the Barrow administration is advancing the 9th Amendment, it is, however, not fait accompli - not a done deal. Consultations are due to continue after the September celebrations subside towards the end of next month. In late October, the 90-day window period will expire for the bill to go through its second reading and parliamentary debate.
"This is not a red and a blue thing!" said an elder citizen of northern Belize, who is a shareholder of BTL. He was heckled all the way through his presentation, but expressed his views, nonetheless. He said that the mandate of the ruling party is to serve the people as best as they can, to educate the people, and he wants the public utilities to be run rightly and for the rates to be reduced.
One concerned citizen asked, "When will we see some benefit [from the nationalization of BTL] in lower rates?"
In excess of $20 million has accrued in dividend payments, which has been spent on the goods and services provided to the people of Belize, responded Saldivar.
Some people at the forum expressed the view that Government should not stop its nationalization agenda at the public utilities, but it should also go after the nationalization of oil companies.
Amandala
AmbergrisCaye.com 
