The Belize Peace Movement (BPM) has reiterated its call for urgent judicial intervention in its constitutional challenge against the Representation of the People's Act (ROPA), specifically Schedule One, arguing that the existing electoral boundaries violate Belize's Constitution. The case, numbered 730 of 2024, remains before the High Court, with BPM pressing for a ruling before the March 2025 General Elections.
BPM members, including claimants Paul Morgan, Giovanni Della Fuente, and others, filed the legal challenge on November 21, 2024, citing the failure of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to implement a constitutionally compliant redistricting process. Their legal position asserts that elections held under the current boundaries would be unlawful due to severe voter malapportionment, where some divisions contain significantly fewer voters than others.
The case was initially met with judicial scrutiny over whether it constituted res judicata (previously settled legal matter). However, the court allowed both claimants and defendants to submit arguments, which were completed by January 13, 2025. Since then, BPM has been awaiting a scheduled hearing, which has not yet been set.
At the heart of BPM’s case is the assertion that Schedule One of ROPA is unconstitutional, given that the electoral divisions fail to adhere to the principle of equal representation. The claimants argue that disparities such as Mesopotamia’s approximately 2,000 voters versus Stann Creek West’s over 10,000 voters undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal weight for each vote.
Attorney Sharon Pitts, representing BPM, emphasized that the Constitution remains the supreme law of Belize and that any legislative provisions conflicting with it are void. She noted that previous legal proceedings had not directly ruled on the constitutionality of the electoral boundaries, meaning the issue remains unsettled.
BPM also criticized the early call for elections, arguing that while the Prime Minister has the legal authority to dissolve Parliament, the failure to correct electoral malapportionment before doing so raises serious constitutional concerns. The movement contends that this move serves political interests rather than addressing democratic integrity.
The claimants also pointed out that redistricting has been delayed for decades, with the last process occurring in 1998, despite multiple commitments from successive governments to address the issue. They highlighted that the government had previously stated that redistricting would occur after the 2020 General Elections but has since failed to take action.
BPM expressed frustration with what it perceives as an unjustified delay by the court in scheduling a hearing. Given the urgency of the upcoming elections, the claimants stress that a ruling on the constitutionality of Schedule One is essential before voters head to the polls. The group warned that failure to resolve the matter beforehand could lead to serious questions about the legitimacy of the next government.
Morgan and other BPM members urged the court to fulfill its role as the guardian of the Constitution, asserting that judicial inaction could amount to a constitutional failure. The claimants also emphasized that the Elections and Boundaries Commission must conduct elections only under legally valid boundaries, and an adverse ruling against ROPA’s schedule would necessitate postponing elections until proper redistricting occurs.
BPM seeks a declaration from the High Court that the current electoral divisions are unconstitutional. Should the court rule in their favor, the Elections and Boundaries Commission would be required to implement a revised, constitutionally compliant division of constituencies before any elections could be held.
The group acknowledged discussions about potential case consolidation with another ongoing legal challenge on electoral boundaries but left that decision to the court’s discretion. They maintained that their case remains distinct in its focus on ROPA’s legal validity rather than administrative actions taken by the Elections and Boundaries Commission.
BPM called on the press and Belizean citizens to engage with the constitutional issues at stake, rather than being swayed by political distractions. The claimants stressed that voters must be aware of their constitutional rights and the implications of participating in elections under contested boundaries.
As the legal process continues, BPM remains steadfast in its demand for clarity from the judiciary, arguing that Belize’s democratic integrity hinges on ensuring fair and constitutional electoral representation.
Commentaires