|
|
|
|
Oct
16
Written by:
Godfrey Smith
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Attorney General’s Fight with the Judiciary
Belize’s Attorney General Wilfred Peter Elrington was still in law school when Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj became a household name in Trinidad and Tobago. But the two have something in common.
Ramesh Maharaj was a flamboyant young lawyer from San Fernando when he made the headlines – and history – by being imprisoned.
A Supreme Court judge had dismissed two of Maharaj’s cases when he failed to show up because he was appearing before the Court of Appeal.
Maharaj accused the judge of un-judicial conduct and asked him to recuse himself from another of his cases.
The judge refused to recuse himself from the case, refused him an adjournment to defend against the charge of contempt and jailed him for seven days.
Maharaj’s appeal against the judge’s decision to jail him for contempt of court resulted in the celebrated case of Maharaj vs the Attorney General in which the Privy Council ruled that the state had to pay damages to him for his wrongful imprisonment by the judge.
The case jet-propelled Ramesh Maharaj to legal stardom and is still studied by students of Caribbean constitutional law. He became the leading advocate of human rights in Trinidad and Tobago.
But law alone didn’t satisfy the energy and intellectual appetite of Ramesh Maharaj. So he entered politics. There too his political star rose quickly. He once again made history.
As Attorney General, he precipitated the worst confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary in Trinidad.
Politicians, wherever they are in the world, are tormented by the temptation to bring everything under their control in order to stay in power for as long as possible.
Maharaj was no exception; he wasn’t built to resist temptation. He turned his back on human rights, accelerated cases in order to hang criminals and bickered with the judiciary. When the judiciary resisted him he proposed a politically appointed Chancellor with expansive responsibility to control the administrative affairs of the judiciary.
The proposal sparked open and public warfare between the Executive and the Judiciary and led to the appointment of two commissions of inquiry.
Wilfred Elrington is no Ramesh Maharaj. He lacks the energy, flair, smarts and tactical skills, but like Ramesh he has triggered a public confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary in Belize which is still unresolved.
At the traditional ceremonial opening of the Supreme Court of Belize in January 2009, the Chief Justice gave his report in which he, as usual, decried the meagre budget allocated to the judiciary.
The Attorney General came with his guns loaded. Before a courtroom filled with members of the diplomatic corps, judicial and legal personnel and the Governor-General, he rebuked the judiciary.
He accused them of incompetence, laziness, dispensing injustice and not justice, singled out a particular judge as not being fit to hold office and said that the judiciary had all the resources it needed and enjoyed the best perks in the land.
The Prime Minister when asked about it the following day expressed himself ready to “bridge any differences that appear to have arisen between the judiciary and the AG”.
Matters remained unsettled but incident free until a section of the Bar Association launched an attempt to remove a judge for excessive delay in delivering judgments.
In response to heavy media publicity of the issue, the judiciary fired off a press release in which it identified the AG’s remarks in January as opening the doors for attacks upon the judiciary.
In an extensive interview in response, the AG repeated everything he had said earlier in January. He didn’t stop there. He said the government simply didn’t have the money to pay for judges to go off to conferences in Africa and England.
The matter of Executive control of the judiciary’s foreign travel is precisely what ignited the blowup between Attorney General Ramesh Maharaj and Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide in Trinidad.
Maharaj insisted that as the “Relevant Minister” he should approve foreign travel for judges regardless of whether there was money in the budget for it.
Mr. Elrington’s remark that there is no money for judicial travel is hypocritical. Ministers as well as bureaucrats travel a great deal more than judges do. The travel expense of a single government department is greater than that of the judiciary as the third branch of the state.
Restricting judicial travel is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to control or punish the judiciary. It is a scene played out often enough in the Caribbean and wider Commonwealth.
The media completely missed the most alarming aspect of the AG’s extended interview with Channel 5. He remarked that when in January he said that magistrates dispensed injustice and not justice he was merely repeating what a Court of Appeal judge had said to him.
If indeed that was said to him, it was said in confidence and not intended for repetition. The Attorney General completely betrayed the confidence of the Court of Appeal judge.
But even if that was said to the AG, he took it out of context and he misapplied it. The comment of the Court of Appeal judge was obviously intended to highlight the fact that having only a few legally trained magistrates must result in plenty of legal mistakes being made.
The remark could not have been intended as a condemnation of the magistrates who, through no fault of their own, are untrained. Their requests for scholarships to study law are routinely turned down or deferred. It is the state that has them there and it is the state that is to blame if they are untrained.
The Attorney General used the remark to make it appear that even the Court of Appeal joined him in viewing the judiciary as incompetent.
The Prime Minister was once again asked about the state of affairs between his Attorney General and the Judiciary. Curiously, this time, though the stew between the AG and the Judiciary had clearly bubbled to a boil, the PM said: “I don’t see the need for me to intervene at all.”
If he “was very much disposed to” bridging any differences in January, why does he not see the need now when differences have clearly widened and deepened?
Is the Prime Minister unhappy with the fact that two big constitutional cases in which he took a personal interest have gone against the government?
Criminal cases brought against ex-Prime Minister Said Musa and ex-Ministers Ralph Fonseca and Joe Coye failed. Civil cases brought against former PUP Ministers Joe Coye and Florencio Marin also failed.
While the Attorney General was of course free to express his preference for who he would like to see as Chief Justice, he showed poor discretion in naming Justice Manuel Sosa as his preferred Chief Justice.
Why? Because naming him will only make the issue into a political football and incite rampant speculation and rumours in a deeply divided society. It would have been better not to have said anything.
Ramesh Maharaj’s political star diminished and lost its luster. Chief Justice de la Bastide went on to become the first president of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
34 comment(s) so far...
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
"Their requests for scholarships to study law are routinely turned down or deferred. It is the state that has them there and it is the state that is to blame if they are untrained."
Are we to assume that these requests were only just being made since February 2008? As a former attorney general, the author of this blog will, no doubt, have received requests for such assistance. Will he compare the number of scholarships he gave or not give during his time as attorney general to that of the number given or not given over the past year or so?
By RAGM on
Friday, October 16, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
godfrey has to remember that it was Wilfred Peter Elrington that kick his ass out of pickstock. he will say anything in his article to bring Elrington down but as we all know Elrighton beat godfrey in the election.
By unbelievable on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Not many people realised that earlier this year Belize's highest court gave a scathing judgment in a case involving the land on which San Cas is situated. The land was owned by Gonzalo Quinto, but through fraud, San Cas was able to buy the land from another person. Sedi and another UDP lawyer Ellis Arnold facilitated the transfer of the land to San Cas. San Cas paid quarter million dollar for the land, but the land transfer document stated that the land was sold for $130,000.00. As everybody knows, the taxes to be paid on the transfer would consequently have been reduced because of this fraud. So, the government of Belize lost revenues on that fraudulent sale and the Quintos were being gilted by the fraud and cunning of San Cas, Sedi and Ellis Arnold.
Fortunately for the Quintos they had money to go all the way to the Privy Council to get the fraudulent sale reverse. So, San Cas, another UDP, was out of pocket quarter million dollars because of being a willing party to a fraud which Sedi and Ellis Arnold facilitated. This land transaction took place back in 2004/2005.
The point is, Sedi is an obscene hypocrite. While in opposition he was busying calling the morning talk shows complaining bitterly about corruption and all kinds of sins, when all the while he himself was a party to corruption.
Now he attacks judges and talks about judges competence as though he is some superb intellectual. Listening to the man spewing his garb, though it becomes apparent that he has a mediocre mind.
Sedi, the Amazing hypocrite.
By Sedi di hypocrite on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Right on, unbelievable.
By RAGM on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Hi Again
He who talks too much, runs into trouble.
History repeats. Let no one fool you.
Even if Sedi has some truth in what he is saying, experience would teach you to shut you mouth.
The more you talk, the more you get in trouble. This is because all the Judiciary will come against you.
So Sedi shut up or Sedi no ready will come true.
Things are so simple, but we complicate things.
History repeats.
Sedi will receive a dose of his own medication.
Bye, adious for now
By True Bzean Man on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
As a young attorney Sedi Elrington "made his bones" by 'fixing' land documents for unsuspecting and trusting clients. Many Belizeans in Hopkins, Riversdale, Placencia, the River Valley and elsewhere were advised to transfer their land in his name for 'safe keeping'.
About 15 years ago a young, brash magistrate with an affinity for flashy rings and watches asked Sedi in court about one of these same land 'deals'. Attorneys say it was asked in jest, but for Sedi, it was no joke. He thrives on looking pious and humble - even saying in the House recently that he did not ask for a government vehicle. The magistrate was piercing that veil and revealing the streak of corruption that runs down Sedi's spine.
Sedi vowed that the magistrate would be removed, but the Attorney General at the time, Dean O Barrow, refused. In fact he was elevated to Chief Magistrate. Dean and Sedi have never seen eye to eye and that relationship has further soured by brother Hubert's transgressions.
The Chief Magistrate toiled in the lower court for many years, as Sedi built his empire, including Lotto, and tried unsuccessfully election after election to get into the House. Sensing a UDP victory in 2008 and learning of the Chief Magistrate's pending elevation to the Supreme Court, Sedi launched a vicious campaign in the media and in the back rooms of the Bar Association. These were to no avail. In 2007 the Chief Magistrate was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The UDP won and Sedi was given the AG portfolio, receiving in turn a pulpit from which to preach fire and brimstone on a judiciary he wants to mould. His tirade in January at the ceremonial opening should have come as no surprise. Sedi has no respect for fellow Belizeans. If things were his way, all judicial officers would come from elsewhere. That is why we have a Guyanese Sol Gen and more foreign Judges. In fact word is that two Guyanese magistrates will be brought in shortly. This is so despite the fact that the two positions they will fill were held by Belizeans for years who had to retire this year. They asked to be brought back on contract but sedi refused. Instead Belizeans will be forced to go before two people who have no appreciation for our laws and customs. And their price tag will be much higher than if the Belizeans were brought back.
Let's be real. Because of Sedi's personal history he should never have been made AG. Barrow knows that now, but it's too late. The rift between the Executive and the Judiciary has gotten to the point where the collapse of our judicial system is eminent. When that goes, we all go. Real
By the realist on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
There might indeed be animosity between Sedi and the judge with an affinity for flashy jewellery, but that does not change the fact that said judge has never made his name as a brilliant lawyer or magistrate. Only this past week the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial for a case presided over by that judge because of a simple procedural error that ought not to have been made by someone that is a supposedly seasoned.
I am sure that many members of the Bar Association would agree that that judge was not the most suitable person to be elevated to the Supreme Court Bench at the time that he was. To assume that the elevation was a quid pro quo would be smart. Remember the separately released reports from the Commission of Enquiry into the DFC fiasco? That is related to the reward of being made a judge. Real!
By RAGM on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
RAGM from the rumour mill, one will have to concede that the flashy judge is just that- all glitter and not much substance. But Sedi's vetriolics and uncontrollable quest to get rid of this judge is causing and entire collapse of confidence in the judiciary. His personal beef is blinding him. I want to assume that a man of Sedi's accomplishments has some ability or talent. As a Belizean, I wish Sedi would apply it, otherwise he needs to get out the way and let some young bright attorney step to the plate and become AG; not Lois Young though.
It is expected that the general citizenry will invariably be indifference and even apathetic towards politicians; that is to say, the Legislature and the Executives. But when this apathy is projected towards the judiciary with similar force, a country is on the bring of chaos. Every student of history will tell you that the judiciary is the last bastion on democracy, so that when the executive and the legislature run amok and dangerously exercise their massive legislative powers, the judiciary is there to protect our rights as ordinary citizens. That is the danger in an a Attorney General provoking a war between the executive and the judiciary. For when there is a loss of confidence in ALL branches of government (which ultimately has to the be consequences of such a war) then people operate within the realm of their own law. That is what is happening right now in Belize. Circumstances like these only accelerate and polarise the chaos. Fi real
By Bring it on on
Saturday, October 17, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
I suppose you are right, sir. Is it really the case that we are on the brink of chaos, though? I think not. This, like so many other things in Belize, will probably "blow over like a little breeze". In principle, it is bad for the Executive and the Legislative arms of the state to even speak disparagingly of the Judiciary. Yet, I must agree with the PM's thoughts that things are not that bad. Perhaps the breaking of conventions such as the Bench not releasing public statements and the Attorney General not "rocking the boat" is being given more attention than it actually deserves.
Both sides of this kerfuffle make valid claims. The Court lacks the resources it would deem as necessary to get the job done, but it is an equally valid observation made by the AG that a country of three hundred thousand should be efficiently administered judicially by nine Supreme Court judges.
As to loss of confidence in ALL branches of government, I think that perhaps we all put too much responsibility on those arms to fix the situation with crime. While one accuses the Judiciary of dispensing injustice and another blames the Minister of Home Affairs for not doing enough to arrest the criminal activity, it must be said that no one in the Judiciary or Executive perpetrate crimes. (Mostly)
The monsters that perpetrate crimes come from within the citizenry. Social disintegration is the root of criminal behaviour. We who allowed our politicians to turn a penalty such as capital punishment into a relic of our past by acquiescing to international agencies concerned about "human rights" are really the ones who should examine ourselves instead of pointing fingers. When parents no longer instilled discipline in their children, it opened the door for wanton rule-breaking that evolved into criminal behaviour. Instead of arguing about cures for illnesses in our branches of government, we should be looking to apply preventative measures.
By RAGM on
Sunday, October 18, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Sorry I can't enter this particular debate. As a rule I don't get into attorney quarrels for the simple reason that I have absolutely no respect for the entire profession, which is without a doubt one of most unscrupulous. No further questions. I rest my case.
By Intolerant of Hypocrites on
Monday, October 19, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Intolerant, you seem confused. So why the utter admiration for Dean Barrow, who by the way was a "most unscrupulous" attorney, representing Ashcroft from way back in 1992 as attorney for Belize Bank and BTL intermittently.
By Bring it on on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Bring It On: I am not only intolerant of hypocrites, but also of imbeciles. Unfortunately, you seem to be both. You want us to BRING IT ON, but when we do, you simply don't get it. Don't you understand that there is a fundamental differnce between being a lawyer and being a statesman? That when Mr. Barrow declared unequivocaly, prior to the elections, that if he had to choose between the Belize Bank and the People of Belize, he has no choice but to stand with the People of Belize, that what he was in effect saying that if he had to choose between being a lawyer and being a statesman, he would readily renounce the former in favor of the latter? And that Mr. Barrow proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he was serious about that commitment when as Prime Minister he made the decision to acquire BTL in the national interest, effectively going against a former client (no doubt one of the most lucrative) in the interest of the people who elected him to be the foremost statesman in the land. You just don't get it, Bring It On. Dean Barrow is the most brilliant and successful attorney in the land, with one of the most winning record. He has proven that he is prepared to give up all of that, if he has to, for the People of this Country. Two cents attorneys and fly by night polticians like Godfrey Smith who sell themselves out for a few pieces of silver, need to look at Dean Barrow and learn how true greatness is attained. As to you, bring it on, you are apparently too dumb to learn. I rest my case.
By Intolerant of Hypocrites on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Had to wade through tons of vitriol to appreciate the positions of the warring regulars. My first reaction when i read of the AG's comments, back when he made them was, 'this guy is speaking out of school.' His comments, even if accurate, were improper. It could have been contempt.
By Gadfly on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Had to wade through tons of vitriol to appreciate the positions of the warring regulars. My first reaction when i read of the AG's comments, back when he made them was, 'this guy is speaking out of school.' His comments, even if accurate, were improper. It could have been contempt.
By Gadfly on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Hypocrite, I will repeat to you what Barney Frank told a woman at one of the Town Hall Meetings held in the United States in relation the proposed federal health legislation when she blurted out that Obama is a Nazi- "mam, what planet do you live on?"
It is obvious that you, like other select UDPs Karim Berges, Juliet Thimbriel, Audrey Wallace, et al are obviously "living good" and that explains why you continue lick Barrow's ass crack. Stateman???? A Statesman is not measured by a one off act. Statesmen are the likes of George Price, Phillip Goldson, Leigh Richardson and Antonio Soberanis. Dean Barrow does not have the measure nor quality of these Statemen.
It is all fine to be a Barrow psychophant, but to spew hatred just because you cannot put together a cogent argument to convince others to be licky licky like you (hope you get the alliteration) is not political correct in these modern times. And this thing about resting your case; for some one who hates attorneys, you sure use a lot of attorney gibberish. Instead you should take a chill pill and rest your brain.
Like I keep saying, Bring it On!
By Bring it on on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Why do you insist on quoting from a BATTY MAN like Barney Franks? Why not from some he-man or she-woman? Don't bring me no ASS-inine (and I hope you get the pun) quotations, Mr. Bring It On. Then again, maybe that's the kind of language that facinates you and Godfrey.
By Intolerant of Hypocrites on
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Godfrey said, GIVE IT TO GODFREY. Now you say, BRING IT ON. Sure sounds familiar. What kind of ASS-inine business going on between you two?
By Intolerant of Hypocrites on
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Substance Hypocrite, substance. That's what you need to bring on,not scurrilious attacks. Just goes to show how puerile and inferior your brain, or rather that piece of lump in your head, is.
By Bring it on on
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
It's like they say: the TRUTH hurts. But, of course, you asked for it. It was you who said BRING IT ON!
By Intolerant of Hypocrites on
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
And, by the way, don't be confusing me with yourself and Godfrey. I am Intolerant; you are the Hypocrite!
By Intolerant of Hypocrite on
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Intolerant has displayed a typical human response to something he has no answer for- that is: he made his argument ad hominem and started to spew Neanderthal hompophobic rhetoric. From my quiet observation of his(her) previous posts I thought there was some brightness to the character. I am now totally convinced otherwise. The "thing" that Intolerant had no answer for is this: he stated that he has absolutely no respect for the whole legal profession. You see, he was the victim of his own generalization(another "neanderthalian" trait) because Dean Barrow is a member of the profession and by generalizing he would have to have no respect for his idol as well. It must have hurt him deeply when Bring it On pointed out his faux pas and, having no answer to the obvious, he decided to take the jamaican bad man approach "n bun fyah pan battyman". Sometimes the people who blaze di most fyah deh di blaze the same sex!
On the AG, he is a fool; some of what he said is accurate but govament dah nuh fish market n dah nuh everything we fi talk bout like kruffy! He brags about not getting a vehicle when he took office. Maybe he didn't get a vehicle because he was too busy securing a job for his daughter (ahead of other deserving career public officers) in New York when vehicles were being handed out. Or maybe he spent the money for the new vehicle on remodeling an office for his wife in Belmopan. Or maybe he was busy getting rid of Andrea Mcsweaney from the AG's Ministry, despite her stellar performance an commitment, simply because her father "used to be" PUP.
On the CJ, there is much truth to what he said but he has to measure his own role in all of this. He is not blameless. If you swing at a madman what do you expect?
By Said Barrow on
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Right on Said Barrow. Madness runs in that family. CJ should have known better than take on an Elrington.
By Mischievous on
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
I would have said it even more bluntly than Intolerant of Hypocrites. Godfrey Smith and his entire supportive cast of bloggers on this site, including you Bring It On, are nothing but a bunch of bitter battymen who can't come to terms with the fact that you all punked on the Belizean People while Mr. Barrow is proving to be a real He-Man. Straight Like That!
By No Spin on
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Sounds like No Spin is resentful of not getting any batty. You mi want some nuh, bouy!! No Spin, don't give up, arch that ass a bit higher and maybe you will get some.
By Ass Spiner on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Top Ten reasons why Sedi didn't get a new vehicle when he took office:
1. He was busy securing a cushy job in New York for his daughter ahead of deserving public officers so that she could get away from a certain Big fellow.
2. He was busy hiring is wife as his personal assistant.
3. He was busy remodelling the Belmopan facilities for his wife.
4. He was busy appointing his partner BQ Pittts as special prosecutor.
4. He was busy appointing his brother (the toothless one with a propensity for confrontation) to the Advisory Council on the Guatemalan Claim. (This one still amazes me!!)
5. He was busy pushing around Andrea McSweaney for a job she didn't even need. (That was his loss)
6. He was busy undermining the decisions of the Solicitor General Tanya Longsworth(An attorney of a higher caliber than himself)
7. He was busy installing his election campaigners as Trade Economists in the Ministry of Foreign Trade.
8. He decided that a 2008 Mitsubishi Montero could not hold him, his ego and his beard as comfortably as a 9 passenger, 5.3 Liter V8, GMC Yukon.(This vehicle was purchased by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Protocol Section to shuttle around visiting dignitaries so don't let him fool you into thinking he got peanuts)
9. He was busy concocting a plan to get rid of the Chief Justice and Justice of Appeal Carey.
10. He was busy greasing his beard!
By Said Barrow on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Sorry there were really eleven reasons but then it wouldn't be a top ten so I had to put No.4 twice!
By Said Barrow on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
The tenor of this conversation is disgusting. Chill. Lets talk to each other and not use our intellect to beat each other across the head.
By Gadfly on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Can't we all just get along???
By Binder on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
Love the top ten! Sedi has gots to go!
By Nambi Pambi on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
I have no desire nor ability to get allong with no battyman. Go Fuck yourselves and each other! Straight like that!
By No Spin on
Friday, October 23, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
No Spin. He who blaze the most fyah blaze the most batty. Admit it, yu like man!
By Nambi Pambi on
Monday, October 26, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
congrats on a well written article, was refreshing to now that the guy in the case that i brief several times for my consitutional law went on to be the AG of T&T. not only when the AG attached the judicary it shows poor judgement, it also makes one ask the question if there is seperation of powers...and from his words it is hard to say definitely... i am aware that justice delay is justice denied, but we must get our house in order first, let us take a wholistic app. to the judiciary. If the CJ is sayin that they need more money, have a independent team do the numbers and use their report as the yard stick if more money is need or not, and then after you have taken the advise of the independent team, give then a grace period so to speak, and only after the expiration of such, then it will be fair to say thay they are lazy and not dispensing justice...it was once posited that when the judges and the courts are called into questions it has a damanging impact on any society..investors are afraid to come and invest, the average man on the street loses confidence in the justice system... All is not well with the judicary but all is not lost either, and I am certain that the AG and the Cj can work out their differences for the betterment of Belize... time will tell...
By francis alexis on
Saturday, November 07, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
A a Belizean living abroad, I know that Consul Generals here in the U.S. are constantly trying to get expatriate Belizeans to invest in Belize, but I personally hesitate for fear of losing my investment. With crime at an all-time high, and corruption -- acknowledged by no less than the U.N. -- it just doesn't inspire any confidence when the AG is seen publicly gunning for the CJ on the local news.
And as usual, the discussion degenerates into "batty man" comments totally devoid of substance.
By Mellow Belizean on
Monday, November 09, 2009
|
Re: The Attorney General's Fight with the Judiciary
When we all Look Back in History Imagine *Pickstock Division*; Area Representative 2007-2018*; as Belizean Creole Seed of Salvation; Honorable Wilfred Peter Seddi Elrington! Congratulation My Brother and May God Christ Jesus Our Lord; Guide; Bless and Be Your Everlasting Shepherd to Everlasting be a Real; True; Creative; COMPASSIONATE LEADER IN THE PICKSTOCK DIVISION; IN GOD JESUS NAME BELIZEAN CREOLE SALVATION OF BELIZE PRAY AMEN! From your Special Friend Jorge Ernesto Prophet Babb!
By Prophet Jorge Ernesto Babb on
Saturday, July 09, 2011
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
Flashpointbelize.com reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. The views expressed in the comments are not necessarily those of Flashpointbelize.com.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed.
|
Find:
|