Enriquez Appeals to Ombudsman Over Refusal of FOIA Request

Public interest litigant Jeremy Enriquez has formally asked the Ombudsman to review and overturn the Attorney General’s Ministry’s refusal of his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for disclosure of legal fees paid to attorneys retained by the State in ongoing redistricting-related litigation.

In a letter dated September 10, 2025, Enriquez invoked Sections 35, 37, and 39 of the FOIA, seeking:

• A review of the Attorney General’s decision dated September 2, 2025, refusing access to the requested information.

• An order directing disclosure of the information requested in his original FOIA application dated August 18, 2025.

• An order requiring that disclosure be made within 14 days.

FOIA REQUEST AND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REFUSAL

Enriquez’s original request sought 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 brought by me since January 1st 2025, to present. Kindly identify each Attorney or firm by name and show the full amount paid to each Attorney/firm.”

On September 2, 2025, the Attorney General’s Ministry refused the request, citing Section 28(1) of the FOIA, which exempts disclosure if it is “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.”

The Attorney General’s letter emphasized that releasing the information would disadvantage the Government in active litigation, potentially exposing its defense strategy, and argued that disclosure would be “reckless and unpardonable” as it could subject State attorneys to unwarranted attacks while carrying out their duties.

GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT

Enriquez disputes the Attorney General’s reliance on Section 28(1), arguing that the exemption has been “improperly and invalidly invoked.” He contends that:

• The refusal was based on “bald assertions” without a lawful justification.

• No explanation was provided as to how disclosure of fee amounts paid from public funds could prejudice litigation or reveal privileged legal strategy.

• Fee information does not amount to case management, legal strategy, or advice covered by legal professional privilege.

He further argued that disclosure of attorney names and legal fees cannot reasonably be equated with exposing sensitive defense material. Enriquez noted that similar information about legal fees has previously been made public by the Government, including:

• A 2023 disclosure request by the Leader of the Opposition regarding $15 million in legal fees under the Blue Bond.

• A 2022 disclosure by the Office of the Prime Minister relating to $20 million in legal fees paid to firms connected to former State officials.

• A 2013 Channel 5 Belize report detailing $10 million in fees for external counsel.

PUBLIC INTEREST ARGUMENTS

Enriquez also relied on Section 34 of the FOIA, which obliges public authorities to consider whether public interest benefits outweigh harm in cases of exemption. He submitted that disclosure would:

• Ensure transparency in the use of taxpayer funds.

• Deter potential misuse or excessive spending on legal fees.

• Strengthen public confidence in government accountability and administration of justice.

• Demonstrate whether fees paid are reasonable, fair, and proportionate to the complexity of the litigation.

Enriquez emphasized that the fees are paid out of public funds, stating that the Attorney General has a duty to account for such expenditure and ensure value for money. He contended that secrecy undermines confidence in government institutions and fuels perceptions of impropriety or favoritism in awarding legal briefs.

NEXT STEPS

Enriquez has requested that the Ombudsman order disclosure of the requested information within 14 days. He indicated that failure to act within 30 days would leave him with no choice but to pursue legal proceedings to secure access.

The dispute arises against the backdrop of Enriquez’s constitutional claim, Claim No. 67 of 2025, challenging Belize’s electoral boundaries as unconstitutional. The Attorney General has maintained that disclosure of legal fee information in this context could prejudice the Government’s defense in the ongoing litigation.