Chief Justice appointment ruled unconstitutional
It has been a sorepoint for the People’s United Party from the day the appointment was made in the closing days of the Esquivel administration. Today the P.U.P. government got its way in the form of a ruling from Justice George Meerabux that the August twenty-sixth appointment of Manuel Sosa as Chief Justice was unconstitutional. The action hit like a bombshell and our coverage tonight begins with an explanation of the move by Attorney General Dickie Bradley.
Dickie Bradley, Attorney General
“It’s important to bare in mind that it is not an action by the government, that what has transpired is a private citizen James Mohammed took another citizen from Caye Caulker Hotel to the Supreme Court in a civil suit and that matter was set down to be heard in front of Chief Justice Sosa. When Mohammed saw that his action was set to come up in front of the Chief Justice, he then filed another suit this time against the government. Whenever a citizen is taking a civil action it is in the name of the Attorney General as the other party. And he took an action asking the Supreme Court to say whether or not the Chief Justice is holding his office legally under the constitution. So it is not the government which has taken the action.”
Stewart Krohn
“Yes, but Mohammed is a well known P.U.P. in San Pedro and obviously he was put up to do this in a way to get rid of the Chief Justice so I think we can put that fiction aside.”
Dickie Bradley
“No, it’s not a fiction. It’s not a fiction, please… It is not the government which has taken the action but that action as a result has brought us to the stage where the Supreme Court has made the ruling that Mr. Sosa was not appointed constitutionally. It is my understanding, I was at the Water Authority all day in the constitutional reform commission meeting when I started getting calls that this thing was in fact underway. I knew Mr. Mohammed had filed the action because as Attorney General our Ministry is required to be served with the legal notice and of course we responded, entering appearance and having somebody in court.
I understand that the judge will issue the reasons for his decision, no doubt he must have stated them in court today. I was not present but basically it would certainly be along the lines of all the legal opinions the government itself has been seeking from constitutional experts from jurists in other parts of the world, that the Constitution of Belize lays down a very clear and straightforward procedure and the procedure is the law — that whenever a Chief Justice is being appointed the appointment is done by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister after consulting with the Leader of the Opposition. And the Leader of the Opposition must be given a genuine opportunity in that consultation process.
You will recall that while the People’s United Party was in Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition the Honorable Said Musa has claimed that he was never consulted, that there was no genuine opportunity in the matter and all the evidence, all the records, the letters, the exchange of correspondence has borned this out. No one can come forward and produce any evidence to counter what the Honorable Said Musa has been claiming.
The appointment of a Chief Justice is a very serious matter. We will recall that on 26 day of August, hours before there was a General Election, in this matter three judges were taken to Belmopan and sworn in. What was the case? It now turns out in fact that every check of the record is showing that they did not follow the proper procedure. One of those judges has resigned, has said I am not going to stay in a position surrounded by this type of controversy. So it is important to bare in mind that the decision made in the Supreme Court today would clearly have to be along the lines that all the evidence satisfies the Supreme Court that the requirements of the Constitution were not followed. It was a breach of the Constitution by the then Attorney General and Government.”
Q: “Where will that now leave the Chief Justice or former Chief Justice, does he revert to a position as a regular justice of the Court or is he essentially without a job?”
Dickie Bradley
“As I understand it when that propertied appointment was made he was being offered the post of Chief Justice. It is not like in the public service, in the regular civil service where one is holding a substantive post and then you are given an acting appointment so if that acting appointment does not come to fruition you fall back on your substantive post.”
Q: “So he is without a job?”
Dickie Bradley
“At the moment he is not the Chief Justice and we will need to check and see what kind of commission it was, whether he can continue as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I need to emphasize here that all along what the Prime Minister and what the new government has been saying, there is no problem with Mr. Sosa. This is not about his ability, his capability or anything to do with him. It simply has to do with the fact that the then government cannot break the constitution.”
