Landmark decisions in Belize since independence

• Author: The Hon. Sir George N. Brown
• Position: Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Belize
• Pages: 540-568

LANDMARK DECISIONS IN

BELIZE SINCE INDEPENDENCE

THE HON. SIR GEORGE N. BROWN*

Belize forms part of

the

Commonwealth Caribbean but, like Guyana,

it is a mainland country, though much further removed geographically

as it forms part of the Central American mainland. This very

geographical location is perhaps a good reason why her independence

was delayed until 1981. There was missing that great interaction with

the other Commonwealth Caribbean islands and Guyana, as there was

among the other closely knitted geographically centered States. There

was no participation in Shell Shield cricket, Benson & Hedges Cup

Football, or inclusion in the world renowned and famous West Indies

Cricket Team. Added to this, though trading on a large scale with the

United Kingdom, as evidenced by Unilever Products and Preferential

Customs Tariffs of years gone by, Belize did not enjoy that close

relationship with the UK that other West Indian colonies did in colonial

times.

That a British Monarch did not visit Belize until 1985 attests to

all this. Then there is the age-old Guatemalan claim, especially so

before independence, that was a cause for concern,

So it is that when Belize became independent on the 21st September,

1981 she did not boast just one Constitution, but two. There was the

traditional United Kingdom Belize Act, Chapter 52 of 1981, with its

resultant Belize Independence Order 1981, by way of UK Statutory

Instrument

No.

1107/81

granting independence to Belize. But there has

been that long-standing controversy between the UK and Guatemala

over Belize to remember. Therefore The Belize Government passed,

through its own Legislative Assembly, The Belize Constitution

Ordinance, No. 14 of 1981, declaring its independence for the

avoidance of

doubt.

Both came into force on the 21st September, 1981.

Then there is the interesting internal political growth and

development since the introduction of adult suffrage in 1954 to

consider. One of the two main political parties had governed

throughout the colonial era, but lost power in the very first post-

Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Belize. The

substance

of

this

article was the

subject-matter of

a

lecture delivered by the author on November 10, 1994

at the University of

the

West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados.

independence general elections that were held in 1984; an election

which gave the hitherto loyal Opposition a 2/3 majority Government.

We therefore had a party inexperienced in the governing, and the other

inexperienced in opposing.

With this background, though adopting the same Westminster model

of government, with the separation of the legislative, executive and

judicial arms, the Judiciary's independence was aptly provided for.

Over the thirteen year period since independence, the Judiciary's work

has become most taxing and interesting, but a challenge to ensure that

the Constitution reigns supreme and that its provisions are upheld. It

is no wonder, then, that landmark decisions of our courts have had to

do primarily with the interpretation of the Constitution and the

upholding of fundamental rights of

its

citizens. Because this Whitehall-

drafted Constitution provides that it is the Supreme Law of

Belize,

and

if any other law is inconsistent therewith that other law shall, to the

extent of the inconsistency, be void, several cases have had to be

decided purely on Constitutional issues. This provision confers the

right

to

judicial review of legislation in the courts. On the other hand,

it is the very Constitution that provides power to the National

Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of

Belize, while providing for the protection of the fundamental rights and

freedom of its citizen and visitors to Belize's shores. There is of

course, like most other independent commonwealth countries, the

fundamental constitutional doctrine of judicial review, that power

whereby the National Assembly's powers to make laws are kept in

check and the executive and administrative arms of Government's

exercise of their power is maintained within their limits to avoid

arbitrariness and rule by decree. This process of judicial review has

during the period after independence caused the Supreme Court on

occasions to declare certain provisions in Acts of Parliament to be

inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore void to the extent of

such inconsistency. Decisions have also been handed down declaring

certain acts on the part of the Governor-General and Heads of

Departments to be unconstitutional and therefore without effect. More

recently, in the wake of the 1989 and 1993 General Elections, there

have been a spate of petitions before the courts for declarations that

certain members of Parliament had lost their seats because of their

behaviour after being duly elected to such seats. Most recently, there