King keeps his Lake I throne; petition struck out

Lisa Shoman

The Opposition party lost the March seventh elections by just over sixty votes. It immediately launched four election petitions in constituencies where the margins were razor thin. One was brought to the Courts on April tenth by Martin Galvez against Lake I Area Representative, Mark King. This morning, Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin crushed that petition which was for the disqualification of King as Area Rep on the basis that he did not disclose a contract between the Government of Belize and his company, Brint’s Security prior to the elections. A copy of the contract held by Brint’s Security was exhibited to the court for verification. It is worth in the range of one hundred and thirty five thousand dollars for security services at various government buildings including the Charles Bartlett Hyde Building in Belize City. But it was CJ Benjamin’s interpretation of the law and specifically the words “for and on account of public service” that crushed Galvez’s petition. It might not be the end of the legal battles says Attorney Lisa Shoman, because the decision by the CJ is appealable.

Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Martin Galvez

“His lordship took the view that the interpretation of the words for and on account of the public service should mean very narrowly the institution of the public service. Obviously, we do not agree with that interpretation and the legal team will be discussing it. In my own personal view, this is something that I will choose to appeal. However, it has to be a decision after sitting down, speaking to Mister Galvez and having a discussion with the entire legal team. It turns on the interpretation of a section of the constitution and so I will say that yes it is an appealable matter and therefore we will take it one step at a time.”

Marion Ali

“Which do you feel was your strongest point in your arguments that you presented?”

Lisa Shoman

“The strongest point would be what it was that the framers of the constitution intended by the entire disqualification section. And to me that entire section deals not only with disqualification for persons in H, but G as well which is the section that is directed to office holders. So therefore, I still take the point and I still hold the view that this section was meant to be interpreted in a much wider way.”