A legal opinion shared by Hon. Tracy Panton argues that the October 20th Unity Convention is constitutionally valid, despite objections from UDP leadership claiming the event is illegitimate.
With Belize facing heavy rains from tropical storm Nadine, the United Democratic Party (UDP)'s internal turbulence could prove even stormier. Panton told this newspaper that they will proceed, "Rain or 'Shyne!'"
Legal Opinion Says Convention is Valid
The legal opinion, which is central to the Alliance for Democracy’s (AfD) push for internal reform within the United Democratic Party (UDP), alleges a series of UDP constitutional breaches by UDP Leader Hon. Moses "Shyne" Barrow and Chairman Michael Peyrefitte.
The focus is on their refusal to call a National Convention, as mandated by the UDP Constitution. According to party rules, a National Convention must be convened every two years or sooner if at least one-fourth of all delegates petition for it. The legal opinion asserts that these conditions were met, yet the leadership failed to fulfill its obligations—thus justifying the call for the October 20th Convention by the delegates themselves.
The legal opinion emphasizes that the UDP Constitution’s use of the term “shall” leaves no discretion for the leadership to ignore valid petitions. “The inaction by the Chairman does not invalidate the delegates’ constitutional right to call the October 20th Convention,” the document states.
This view aligns with Hon. Panton’s confidence in the validity of the event. During an interview with The Reporter, Panton underscored the unity among delegates and their desire for change. She stated, "It is my belief based on the work we have done on the ground that we will have the mandate of this party to proceed."
Constitutional Infractions by Leadership
The legal opinion also allege a series of constitutional violations that have intensified dissatisfaction within the party. These alleged breaches include the failure to call meetings, arbitrary removal of standard bearers, and expulsion of senior members without due process. The legal opinion lays out the following complaints:
1. Failure to Call Meetings
Article 7(6) of the UDP Constitution mandates quarterly meetings of the National Party Council (NPC). Despite repeated petitions by NPC members, leadership has not convened such meetings. This failure deprives members of their right to participate in critical decision-making, undermining transparency and accountability within the UDP.
2. Arbitrary Removal of Standard Bearers
The leadership removed several standard bearers without adhering to the required disciplinary procedures, which involve consultation with constituency organizations. Hon. Panton echoed this concern, pointing out that “there is a majority that have now been unilaterally removed from the party, and that is not acceptable to us.” The arbitrary removal of candidates without due process has led to growing discontent among members.
3. Invalidation of Delegates
Another issue identified in the legal opinion was the chairman’s arbitrary invalidation of 35 delegates due to changes in constituency leadership. This action was taken without allowing the affected delegates the opportunity to appeal, a clear violation of the Constitution. Such actions suggest attempts at manipulating internal governance for the benefit of the current leadership.
4. Expulsion of Members Without Due Process
Senior UDP members, including Hon. Panton, were expelled without hearings before the Ethics and Integrity Committee. These expulsions violated Article 11 of the UDP Constitution, which stipulates the right to a fair disciplinary process. The lack of adherence to constitutional requirements has fueled accusations of authoritarian leadership within the party—a sentiment that Panton underscored when describing the current “disquiet” among party delegates.
Divided Leadership and Internal Challenges
While the AfD says their fight is to restore democratic values, others within the party paint a different picture. The counter-narrative within the UDP suggests that internal divisions are detrimental to the party's stability—particularly with the looming threat of snap general elections.
Senior party officials have told The Reporter that Barrow has brought about increased accountability, especially in campaign financing. It is this enhanced accountability, they allege, that has engendered dissent, including those from Panton and former leader Hon. Patrick Faber.
Earlier this year, tensions escalated when San Ignacio Mayor Earl Trapp called for the expulsion of Faber over his public criticisms of Barrow's leadership. Following significant backlash from supporters, however, Trapp retracted his demand, revealing the depth of divisions within the UDP.
Sources close to the party leadership argue that these conflicts are about more than governance—they are about consolidating power ahead of potentially pivotal elections.
The Way Forward
The legal opinion concludes that should the current leadership refuse to acknowledge the results of the October 20th Convention, legal action may be necessary to enforce them. “The likely outcome is that the leadership of the party is not going to respect the outcome of the convention,” the legal opinion predicts, pointing to a potential legal battle ahead.
Comments