Privy Council rules on referendum and constitutional amendment case

lisa shoman

The Prime Minister introduced the Sixth Amendment Bill to the constitution on April twenty-fifth of 2008.  In that bill fundamental rights and freedoms that are shared by Belizeans would have been altered. The bill in its original form would have also characterized serious crimes as terrorism and additionally would have seriously eroded the rights of property owners under another section.   A group of four citizens challenged it in the courts and the case became known as the referendum case because it involved the referendum amendment bill and the sixth amendment bill introduced in the house on the same day.  Attorney Lisa Shoman represented the group.  The matter was first taken to the Supreme Court in May 2008 and the CJ in July ruled in favour of the group of citizens on July 28, 2008. The government then went to the Court of Appeal, but before it did so, on August twenty second, GOB removed from the bill the entire clause which dealt with preventative detention.  Today the Privy Council ruled that the government of Belize was not required to hold a referendum primarily because the sixth constitution bill no longer contained any issues outstanding on which a referendum needed to be held.  But Shoman says that it is not a loss as the government has made most of the necessary changes they were seeking while the case was waiting to be heard by the Privy Council in London.

Lisa Shoman, Attorney

“The Privy Council has since accepted that the group of citizens did take up this case in order to prevent the prime minister’s evading the need to have consultations with the people of Belize. Since then, of course, up to now the Privy Council decision, two years have passed. The government has in fact bowed to public pressure, listened to the voice of the people and people power has meant the government had to institute changes to fundamental rights and freedom. I shuddered to think what would have happened if preventative detention went through. Had it gone through for instance, you wouldn’t have needed a manifest, you simply would have rounded up people that you think should be locked up either because you don’t like their looks or you don’t like their ethnicity. There is absolutely no law that prevents one from walking around without a job. There isn’t a law. There isn’t a law that says you have to have a home in fact. It’s not a crime to be either jobless or homeless and it is precisely to prevent this kind of human rights abuse why in the very first place we challenged this law because the group of citizens who were also voters saw very clearly that dangerous changes were being proposed to the constitution and given government’s super majority, they would not have been stopped from pushing through those changes as they seemed bent on doing without being able to, first of all, sit down and listen to the Belizean people. Yes, there would have been the ninety day interval, but I contend and maintain that what the Privy Council decided completely vindicates the stand that the citizens took. What they said in fact, was that the referendum wasn’t even binding, it was consultative, but in our democracies, the duty to consult is an important one.”

Jose Sanchez

“On the surface level, it appears you have lost, but the judgment itself is saying that just by taking it, you did win.”

Lisa Shoman

“Not every decision that sounds contrary is a loss and if fact that’s what we’re saying in this case. What the Privy Council has held is that the referendum does not need to be held. The litigants who brought the case, won at the first instance, the Supreme Court, they won at the court of appeal.  But in the intervening two years since we had this journey, the group of citizens have managed to accomplish exactly what it set out to accomplish to give the government pause in changing these fundamental rights and freedoms without first consulting the Belizean people. In fact the government made the first set of changes after the Chief Justice had ruled that these were matters which should have gone to referendum and after tremendous public pressure was brought to bear not only by this group of citizens, but by many citizens.”