The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) dismissed an appeal filed by Jeremy Enriquez, ruling that his attempt to halt the upcoming general elections was without merit; the decision reinforces the legal principle that courts do not intervene in election schedules once Parliament has been dissolved.
CCJ Rejects Appeal as “Without Merit”
Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay confirmed that the CCJ denied Enriquez’s application for special leave, marking the latest unsuccessful legal maneuver in a case challenging Belize’s electoral process. The dispute arose when Enriquez’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, attempted to bypass the Belize Court of Appeal by taking the matter directly to the CCJ.
Courtenay criticized the move as forum shopping, where litigants seek a more favorable ruling by escalating cases between courts without a substantive legal basis. He noted that the Court of Appeal had yet to deliberate on the merits of the case, and there was no legal error that justified direct intervention by the CCJ.
Courts Do Not Halt Elections Once Parliament Is Dissolved
Courtenay emphasized that the ruling aligns with judicial precedent across the Commonwealth, where courts have consistently held that they do not intervene in election matters once a Prime Minister dissolves Parliament.
He pointed to prior CCJ rulings, including the Christopher Ram case, which reaffirmed that courts do not dictate when an election should take place. Instead, election-related disputes are to be handled after polling through election petitions, rather than through pre-election legal challenges.
“There is a long and consistent line of cases in the Commonwealth that says, when a Prime Minister dissolves the National Assembly, it is time for the people to speak, and courts will not restrain the holding of elections,” Courtenay stated.
Timing Dispute and Procedural Objections
The legal dispute arose after the Supreme Court rejected Enriquez’s request to stop the election. His legal team then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which issued procedural directives requiring both sides to submit evidence before setting a hearing date.
Enriquez’s attorney objected to the timeline, claiming that it delayed the case and sought immediate CCJ intervention. However, Courtenay asserted that no legal grounds existed for challenging the scheduling of a hearing, as procedural timelines are standard in appellate cases.
He also pointed out that the Court of Appeal’s directive merely required both parties to file evidence and legal submissions, making the CCJ appeal an attempt to circumvent standard legal processes.
Electoral Law: Right to Vote vs. Effective Representation
The case also highlighted fundamental distinctions within Belize’s electoral law, particularly the difference between a citizen’s right to vote and the principle of effective representation in constituency divisions.
Courtenay explained that Section 96 of the Constitution guarantees every registered voter the right to participate in elections through a secret ballot and ensures that only valid votes are counted. However, disputes over constituency sizes and voter distribution fall under Section 90, which addresses representation, not voting rights.
He noted that election-related cases in the past have upheld that as long as all registered voters can cast their ballots, claims of disproportionate representation do not justify halting an election. Instead, such concerns must be addressed through political processes or post-election legal challenges.
Legal Costs and Potential Consequences for Frivolous Litigation
While public law cases typically do not impose legal costs on claimants, Courtenay indicated that governments can seek compensation if a case is deemed frivolous or unreasonable.
He highlighted that the CCJ dismissed Enriquez’s special leave application as “without merit”, which could potentially expose Enriquez or his legal counsel to legal cost liabilities. While the Attorney General has not yet instructed any cost recovery action, Courtenay noted that the government could argue that Enriquez’s CCJ appeal was unnecessary and wasteful of public resources.
Additionally, he raised the concept of wasted costs, which applies to attorneys rather than clients. This principle holds that lawyers may be financially liable if they pursue litigation that lacks merit, a factor that could impact Enriquez’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan.
Next Steps and Court of Appeal Proceedings
With the CCJ ruling now settled, the case returns to the Court of Appeal, where the original hearing is set to follow standard procedural requirements.
Courtenay reiterated that while Enriquez has a right to pursue an appeal, the Court of Appeal will not disrupt its schedule to accommodate an expedited hearing. He added that courts must prioritize their existing dockets, ensuring that no single case displaces others already in line for deliberation.
The CCJ’s ruling reinforces a longstanding legal position that courts do not block elections after parliamentary dissolution. The dismissal of Enriquez’s appeal sets the stage for the March 12 general elections to proceed, while any legal challenges to electoral processes will have to be resolved through post-election petitions.
With the Court of Appeal set to hear the case in due course, attention now turns to whether further legal challenges will emerge after the results are declared.
Komentarze