Maya vs G.O.B. in court for preliminary objections
In court this morning, another round of arguments between the Mayan Leaders Alliance and the Government of Belize was heard. Preliminary objections were submitted in which the Mayan Leaders are attempting to convince the courts to extend to other areas, an earlier ruling which gave the Mayas communal rights in the Conejo and Santa Cruz areas. Attorney Rodwell Williams cited eight objections against the Mayans, including that they failed to disclose grounds for their claim; and that the claim was a breech of procedures and protocols. Williams motioned that the case be struck out due to insufficient evidence and rejected arguments of neglect and discrimination against the people of the thirty-eight Mayan communities in Toledo. Attorney Lois Young, also representing the government, supported the submissions made by Williams. In the early afternoon after hearing arguments, Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh ruled that there is sufficient evidence to uphold a claim allowing the Mayan Alliance to go to the substantive trial. Counsel for the Mayan Leaders Alliance, Antoinette Moore, says that in order to avoid discrimination, the western mentality must not hold weight and indigenous people and their traditional ways should prevail.
Antoinette Moore, Counsel, Mayan Leaders Alliance
“The Chief Justice found that there was no merit to most of the objections brought by the interested party. It’s based on their tradition and their customs. This is what, and I’ve said this before, I think there is a real lack of understanding on the part of the Government of Belize, but I think there is also a lack of understanding generally speaking. We hope to close the gap and continue to try and educate people about this. Mr. Williams, who represents the interested party, continued to say that the Maya claimants were like any other property holder and that they essentially, could bring their claim as individuals. But because they don’t practice their land tenure, their land ownership, use and management, individually; they practice it communally, they essentially are different than other landholders. That doesn’t mean that they have higher rights or special rights, but their rights have to be protected just like any other person.”
Cristina Coc, Director, Julian Cho Society
“For me, even though—just them saying that we are not personally affected is incredible. It’s an incredible misunderstanding because we are all personally affected; we are Mayan people, indigenous people fighting for our rights. One of the strongest objections and partly very confusing for me is that they’re suggesting is that title should be a pre-requisite of bringing this case forward and what, in fact, we are saying is that we’ve never had title and that is what we would like to have recognised. Another objection was speaking to the fact that this claim is an over archly broad claim and that, in fact, we shouldn’t be allowed to bring this claim forward on behalf of all thirty-eight Mayan Communities. It’s evident, in fact, that the directive and the partial will to implement the previous Mayan Land Rights Claim is limited to just the two communities and so what happens to the other thirty-six communities who are identical to these two communities? You see in the court room right now, you have leaders from the other communities wondering so what about us? We are Maya as well. The previous Supreme Court decision will weight heavily on this case. We are, in fact, asking for a reaffirmation of our rights. So, it’s interesting to me that even ten years later, we’d be sitting in court going over the same arguments.”
The Attorneys for the government made no comments after the ruling. The trial, however, is set to begin on January twenty-seventh, 2009.
