AG Ministry Refuses Disclosure of Legal Fee Information Citing FOIA Exemption

The Attorney General’s Ministry has refused a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by public interest litigant Jeremy Enriquez for disclosure of the names of attorneys retained by the Government and the amounts paid to them in ongoing redistricting-related cases. The Ministry cited Section 28 of the FOIA, which exempts documents connected to pending or likely legal proceedings or protected by legal professional privilege.

In its written reply, the Ministry stated: “Your pending claim and appeals are cases which require attorneys with particular specializations to defend the State’s interests. There is a reasonable likelihood of substantial adverse effect on the interest of Government if the information requested is disclosed.”

The Ministry argued that disclosure of attorney names and fees could disadvantage the Government in litigation, potentially exposing its defense strategy and undermining its ability to properly represent the State. It also maintained that releasing such details would subject attorneys to unwarranted public scrutiny and pressure while they perform their duties.

What Section 28 of the FOIA Says

Section 28 of the FOIA provides that:

“28.-(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would be reasonably likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the Government of Belize or of a prescribed authority in or in relation to pending or likely legal proceedings.

(2) A document is an exempt document if it is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

(3) A document of the kind referred to in section 7 (1) of this Act, is not an exempt document by virtue of subsection (2) of this section by reason only of the inclusion in the document of matter that is used or to be used for the purpose of the making of decisions or recommendations referred to in section 7 (1) of this Act.”

In simpler terms, subsection (1) allows the Government to withhold documents if releasing them could harm its position in ongoing or upcoming court cases. Subsection (2) protects documents covered by legal professional privilege, which means private communications between a lawyer and client. This privilege exists so that lawyers can give confidential advice without fear of disclosure. Subsection (3), however, prevents the Government from withholding wider decision-making records just because they happen to contain privileged legal advice.

Enriquez’s Request

In his FOIA application dated 18 August 2025, Enriquez requested disclosure of “the amount of money paid to each Attorney or firm retained by the State in its defence of the cases for an injunction of an unconstitutional national election, and relevant follow-up cases… Kindly identify each Attorney or firm by name and show the full amount paid to each Attorney/firm.”

Enriquez framed his request in the context of public accountability, noting that taxpayer funds are used to pay outside legal counsel. He cited Section 34 of the FOIA, which requires authorities to consider whether public interest benefits outweigh the harm of withholding exempt documents.

The request relates to ongoing litigation in which Enriquez is a claimant, challenging Belize’s electoral boundaries under Claim No. 67 of 2025. That claim seeks a declaration that holding elections on the basis of the existing constituencies would breach the constitutional guarantee of fair representation. The Government has argued that disclosure of attorney names and fees in this context would interfere with its defense in the pending proceedings.