Ombudsman to GOB’s Chief Legal Adviser: Follow the Transparency Law

The Office of the Ombudsman has advised the Attorney General—Belize’s chief legal adviser and custodian of the Rule of Law—to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after determining that his refusal to disclose certain government contracts breached the transparency standards established by the Act.

The directive stems from a review requested by civic activist Jeremy Enriquez, who challenged the Attorney General’s September denial of his FOIA application seeking details on payments to private attorneys retained by the government. In an October 15 letter, the Ombudsman informed Enriquez that a formal review had been conducted under Sections 35, 37, and 39 of the FOIA.

The Ombudsman concluded that the information sought could not be lawfully withheld in its entirety, stating that “the document requested… does not fall within the stipulations of Part IV of the FOIA relating to Exempt Documents, as it represents a contractual arrangement between the Government of Belize and private service providers.” The Ombudsman reasoned that such contracts, especially when involving public funds, form part of the public record and are essential to accountability.

The review emphasized that the FOIA allows for partial disclosure rather than total secrecy, noting that “the Act permits the reasonable exclusion (redaction) of only those portions which are properly considered exempt or confidential, rather than withholding the entire document.” The statement underscores that ministries cannot rely on blanket exemptions to block public scrutiny of financial transactions.

In keeping with that position, the Ombudsman formally recommended that the Attorney General reconsider his decision and release the non-exempt portions of the requested material. Specifically, the Office directed that the government disclose “the names of the attorneys or law firms retained by the Government of Belize in the relevant cases” and “the total amounts paid to each attorney or firm from public funds,” while redacting only information that legitimately qualifies under Section 28(1) of the Act.

The ruling also reinforces the Ombudsman’s oversight authority to independently examine documents where exemption is claimed, ensuring that confidentiality assertions are valid before information is withheld. This safeguard, according to the Ombudsman’s letter, balances the protection of legitimate state interests with the public’s right to know how government resources are used.

For Enriquez, the finding is a step forward in a transparency battle that now places Belize’s top legal officer under formal correction by the national oversight body. The Office assured him that he will be notified of any subsequent action by the Attorney General’s Chambers and reminded him of his right under Section 39 of the FOIA to seek judicial review before the Supreme Court should the matter remain unresolved.

The episode highlights a rare institutional inversion in Belizean governance: the watchdog of accountability reminding the government’s own legal guardian to obey the very statute that embodies the Rule of Law. In practice, the FOIA functions as one of its living instruments—transforming transparency from principle to enforceable right. The Ombudsman’s intervention therefore reaffirms a simple truth at the heart of democracy: even those who interpret the law are bound to follow it.