Redistricting Case Faces Strikeout Bid; Peace Movement Argues Constitutionality Still Unresolved After One-Month Transition

A courtroom battle over electoral fairness unfolded this week, as government attorneys sought to strike out a redistricting case they claim has already been litigated.

At the center of the dispute is a renewed legal challenge filed by the Belize Peace Movement (BPM), whose attorney Hubert Elrington contends that the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) continues to neglect its constitutional obligation to hold elections based on equitable divisions. Elrington argued that the Attorney General failed in his duty to ensure compliance, forcing citizens to act independently. He maintained that under Section 20 of the Constitution, the claimants have a right to seek redress in the courts even if prior reports by the EBC were not judicially reviewed.

Government lawyers, however, argue that the matter is res judicata and constitutes an abuse of process. They assert that the issues raised were already addressed in the 2019 Parker-Smith case, in which six of the seven current claimants were involved. Special attention was drawn to claimant Rudy Wade, the only person to file affidavits in the present case. While not a party to the earlier claim, government attorneys allege he shares a privity of interest with the original claimants and is effectively continuing their litigation.

The state further maintains that the EBC satisfied the prior consent order by producing a redistricting report and that the claimants missed their window to challenge it. They argue that with Cabinet now committed to completing a fresh redistricting process within twelve months, the case is moot and should be struck out.

Still, Elrington insists the issue remains active. He questioned the constitutionality of the current electoral divisions, pointing out that no Belizean court has ever made a definitive ruling on the matter. He also dismissed the government’s position as a distraction, arguing that the Constitution mandates elections must be conducted on the basis of fairly apportioned divisions.

The state has also invoked the doctrine of separation of powers, asserting that the court lacks jurisdiction to compel the National Assembly or the EBC to carry out redistricting. Instead, they argue such matters are political and administrative, not judicial.

As the legal arguments unfold, the court must now decide whether to allow the BPM’s claim to proceed or accept the government’s strikeout motion—placing the broader redistricting debate at the intersection of law, politics, and constitutional duty.