Were 2005 disturbances a riot? Judge will decide
The latest political developments, while dramatic in their own right, have done little to quell the fear of many Belizeans that the demonstrations still planned for tomorrow could turn hostile and lead to significant destruction of property. But when does a violent confrontation become a riot? The question is more than academic, as News Five’s Janelle Chanona explains.
Janelle Chanona, Reporting
Tonight many Belizeans are hoping that the destruction that unfolded in downtown Belize City on the night of April twentieth 2005 will not reoccur tomorrow following the demonstrations planned for Belmopan. A number of businesses in the old capital will close on Friday in solidarity, but some will lock doors out of fear of vandalism and looters. There is also concern that if losses are suffered, an insurance settlement may be hard to get. The reason? Over two years after the last incident, local insurance companies have had to sue the Government to recover the more than half a million dollars paid out to businesses that were targeted two years ago. It’s all about the word riot.
Andrew Marshalleck, Insurance Companies Attorney
“The government had denied the claims on the basis that there was no riot and have put forth technical arguments as to why the claims should not be satisfied.”
According to Andrew Marshalleck, his clients: Atlantic Insurance, RFG Insurance, Regent Insurance, and United Insurance, got together to jointly assert that under the Riots Compensation Act, they must be reimbursed six hundred and ninety thousand dollars. But through its attorney Derek Courtenay, the Government has rejected that premise.
Andrew Marshalleck
“They are basically saying that there wasn’t a riot, that there were multiple episodes of burglary. Of course the position of the claimants is that there was a riot and they relied heavily on the footage shot by both television stations.”
According to Marshalleck, the legal definition of a riot is five or more people executing a common purpose, specifically a crime. The attorney goes on to contend that even the reading of the riot act does not guarantee it will be classified as a riot.
Andrew Marshalleck
“What the law says is that where the proclamation is made, those officers can’t then be sued for any damage that they cause in subsequently dispersing the crowd. So reading the proclamation is something that is in the benefit of the police officers themselves who would then proceed into that uncertain situation in an attempt to settle whatever disturbances they find, so that really doesn’t determine whether or not there’s a riot.”
Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh finished hearing the arguments from both the Government and the insurance companies on Tuesday and has reserved his decision. Reporting for News Five, I am Janelle Chanona.
