BELIZE CITY, Wed. Oct. 15, 2025

   Three applications tied to Jeremy Enriquez’ ongoing redistricting challenge were dismissed by the Belize Court of Appeal on Friday, October 10. The justices of appeal panel comprised court president, Hon. Minnet Hafiz-Bertram; Hon. Sandra Minott-Phillips, KC; and Hon. Marguerite Woodstock Riley, KC. The three matters were dismissed based on technicalities, and today, Enriquez told Amandala, “We will definitely take this all the way to the CCJ.” He stated in a release, “I refuse to be silenced by technicalities.” Enriquez insists that justice has not been served, as the substantive issues have not been addressed. The development raises the question of justice being sacrificed for procedural formality, especially in matters of public interest. On the other hand, strict compliance with mandatory requirements (as opposed to minor lapses), especially in higher courts, is emphasized.

   A first application sought to appeal the High Court’s refusal to grant an injunction that would have halted the March 12, 2025 general elections. That appeal was struck out on jurisdictional grounds: the application had been filed before the relevant order was perfected. Under Belize law, the period for appeal begins only after an order is perfected; and without that, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. A couple attorneys explained that the Court is ultimately responsible to perfect an order; but if this is not done after some time, either party can initiate the process by drafting the order and submitting it to the court.

   The second matter involved a personal appeal by Enriquez’ attorney, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, whom trial judge Tawanda Hondora had ordered to pay wasted costs representing half of the legal costs incurred by the Attorney General regarding three interim applications that were ruled on in February this year. Wasted costs are imposed due to improper conduct or procedural failures. The order was made based on the filing of affidavits and exhibits which Justice Hondora noted were not done in accordance with the law, the Civil Procedure Rules, and Ramlogan’s obligations to the court. The appeal of the wasted costs order was dismissed because the Court of Appeal’s permission was not obtained before filing—a procedural step required to properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction. Ramlogan was represented by Dr. Christopher Malcolm in this matter.

   The final application challenged a set of 20 procedural orders issued by Justice Hondora on May 12 of this year, including a gag order barring Enriquez from publicly discussing the contents of the order. The order was made following Enriquez’ application for Hondora to recuse himself from the case due to bias. The Court of Appeal, relying on established case law, found that the orders were preparatory in nature and did not determine any substantive rights. As such, the appeal was disallowed.

   The parties must return before Hondora for a report in relation to the application for his recusal so that new directions can be given.

   In his release, Enriquez pointed to the fact that Belize’s electoral divisions remain “deeply uneven, while every attempt is made to seek technicalities to frustrate the pursuit of justice.” That’s because both the Respondent, the Attorney General and the Elections and Boundaries Commission (as an interested party) made preliminary objections to one of the appeals, citing the relevant procedural failure. Enriquez added that all branches of government have “failed to effectively resolve this constitutional failure.” He calls on all Belizeans to defend electoral justice and pointed to “silence and complicity of major civil society organizations …”

Enriquez seeks leave to challenge Judicial and Legal Services Commission

   Today, Enriquez informed via press release that he is seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) in relation to his formal complaint about judicial misconduct against Justice Hondora. The complaint was submitted on April 23, 2025, and Enriquez argues that there is inaction and unreasonable delay in resolving the matter.

   If granted leave, Enriquez would seek an order from the court that the hearing of the complaint be expedited and that the JLSC be compelled to make a decision within 14 days. According to Enriquez, whenever they have enquired about any progress that has been made, they are merely told that “the matter is being dealt with”. “But we do not know how it is being dealt with … We do not know what timelines we should expect. Nothing,” he said. He insists that citizens must be confident in the impartiality and fairness of public institutions.

   Enriquez noted that five months have elapsed and, despite the submission of sworn affidavits, supporting documents and audio recordings “that detail bias and unprofessional conduct by the judge,” there appears to be no progression.

Ombudsman sides with Enriquez on legal fees request

   The Ombudsman, Major (Ret’d) H. Gilbert Swaso, has ruled in favour of Enriquez regarding his request for information from the Attorney General under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Enriquez had requested the disclosure of legal fees paid by the Government of Belize to private attorneys in his redistricting case. The Attorney General denied the request, citing exemptions under the Act. However, the Ombudsman reported to Enriquez that he wrote the Attorney General notifying him that the requested information does not qualify as exempt because it “represents a contractual arrangement between the Government of Belize and private service providers (attorneys). Such contracts are generally not exempt, especially if they concern the use of public funds, which is a matter of public accountability.”

   The Ombudsman has advised the Attorney General to reconsider his decision and to disclose to Enriquez the names of attorneys and law firms retained by the Government and the total amounts paid to each from public funds. This is in view of the FOIA allowing partial disclosure rather than withholding entire documents. In such a case, only strictly confidential sections would be redacted.

   If the matter is not resolved, Enriquez can seek redress in court, and he told Amandala that he is prepared to go that route, if necessary. Nonetheless, he expects that the Attorney General “will not be playing political games, and will very clearly, objectively pass on the information that the people deserve to know.” He deems the Ombudsman’s assesssmemt and his subsequent actions to be “a great step forward.”