Ombudsman Challenges Government in Constitutional Claim

Former Ombudsman Retired Major Gilbert Swaso has filed a constitutional claim against the Government of Belize, alleging that the non-renewal of his appointment and actions taken against him violated the constitutional independence of the Ombudsman’s Office.

Court documents filed this week contend that Swaso was subjected to retaliation after issuing a Freedom of Information ruling involving a request for disclosure of legal fees paid by government to private attorneys engaged in the redistricting litigation. The claim seeks declarations from the court concerning the independence of the Ombudsman and the legality of the government’s actions.

According to the claim, Swaso ruled in favor of a Freedom of Information request submitted by activist and public-interest litigant Jerry Enriquez, who sought records relating to payments made to private attorneys retained by the Attorney General’s Ministry. The former Ombudsman determined that the requested information should be disclosed.

The Attorney General’s Ministry subsequently challenged that decision before the Court of Appeal. The appeal remains pending. Swaso alleges that, following his ruling, he attended a meeting in December 2025 with Minister of Public Service, Constitutional and Political Reform Henry Charles Usher, during which concerns were reportedly raised about the decision in the FOIA matter as well as another report. The claim further alleges that two days later he was informed that his appointment as Ombudsman would not be renewed when his term expired at the end of December 2025.

The constitutional challenge argues that the decision not to renew his appointment amounted to unlawful interference with an independent constitutional office and undermined the Ombudsman’s ability to operate free from political influence. Swaso is asking the court to determine whether the actions taken against him violated constitutional principles designed to protect the office’s independence.

The lawsuit also reportedly raises issues concerning compensation during his tenure, alleging that he was not paid in accordance with the terms applicable to the office. The Ombudsman Act states, in section 8(1):

“8.-(1) Subject to sub-section(2), the Ombudsman shall receive such emoluments and be subject to such other terms and conditions of service as may from time to time be prescribed by or under any law or by resolution of the National Assembly, such emoluments being not less than the emoluments which may, from time to time, be payable to a Judge of the Supreme Court.”

It is likewise noteworthy that in March 2026, the Government of Belize has tabled a draft amendment of the act (the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2026, that seeks to repeal section 8(1) and replace it as follows:

“(1) Subject to sub-section (2), the Ombudsman shall receive such emolument and may be subject to such other terms and conditions of services as may from time to time be prescribed by or under any law or by resolution of the National Assembly.”

The claim emerges against the backdrop of a prolonged vacancy in the Ombudsman’s Office. As previously reported by The Reporter, Belize, at the time of writing, has remained without an Ombudsman for more than 160 days and counting following the expiration of Swaso’s term at the end of December 2025. The vacancy has affected the functioning of the office, including matters connected to Freedom of Information proceedings.

Under Belizean law, the Ombudsman serves as an independent authority empowered to investigate complaints involving government departments and public authorities, including allegations of maladministration, abuse of authority, corruption and disputes arising under the Freedom of Information Act.