Belmopan, Belize 12 March 2009 - (Belizean.com) The Belize Supreme Court has today handed a significant victory to former Prime Minister Rt. Hon. Said Musa in granting him leave for judicial review against a charge of theft lodged by the newly installed United Democratic Party government. Belmopan Magistrate Earl Jones had comiitted Rt. Hon. Musa to the Supreme Court for theft but Chief Justice Hon. Abdulai Conteh agreed with the defense that magistrate Jones' lower court order was rife with fallacies, inconsistencies and errors in law and jurisdiction as to warrant a judicial review.
The current Belize government has been engaged in what is widely regarded as a politcal witch hunt against its political rivals since it took office a little over a year ago.
To date the U.D.P. government has not been able to employ a Solicitor General following the resignation of the substantive official appointed by the U.D.P. - a highly regarded professional trained in the U.K. - and the subsequent flight of two imported crown counsels from Canada who abandoned their appointments amidst allegations of a politicised executive legal branch.
The U.D.P. TV station Channel 7 has taken an uncharacteristically dim view of today's events in its reportage:
Anthony Sylvester, Attorney for Said Musa:
"Ordinarily in circumstances like this, the court will tell an applicant who has been committed that look, go to court, go to trial, and see what happens at trial. And it is only in compelling and exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that the court grants leave and the reasons on which Mr. Musa was granted leave to review the decision to commit was, as you have pointed out, that the Magistrate considered inadmissible evidence.
"In addition to that the Magistrate wrongly assumed jurisdiction and thirdly and equally important was the fact that, let me just refer to my notes, that yes, the decision was irrational and unreasonable having regard to the fact that he had discharged Mr. Ralph Fonseca who was being charged and who basically faced the same evidence and the same charge. And so that clearly had to be irrational and unreasonable. As we've been saying all along that there is no case against Mr. Musa. I could speak for myself, I am not sure...."
Lisa Shoman; Attorney for Said Musa
"Absolutely, no. Clearly this is for us more than just mere permission; we think it is a conformation that indeed our case is as strong as we have always said that it is."
There was some drama leading up to the granting of leave for judicial review because of a letter. Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl-Lyn Branker Taitt was due to argue the case on the defendant's behalf.
But this morning appearing in the DPP's place was Crown Counsel Priscilla Banner who had written to the CJ on Tuesday requesting an adjournment because the DPP was scheduled to appear in the Court of Appeal. But the CJ took great issue with the fact that Banner wrote the letter under the Attorney General's letterhead on behalf of the DPP.
The CJ declared, "The AG is not supposed to appear or write on their letterhead on behalf of the DPP...the DPP could have sent a rookie from her office or even asked a member of the Bar to appear. The DPP and the AG's Ministry are separate.
The DPP acts with no one, takes instruction from one one. Why hang on the coat-tails of the AG? It is improper! It is the perception and implication! I take a dim view of this letter."
Following the presentation of the grounds for the application by the Musa team and a brief adjournment, at eleven thirty this morning, all sides appeared again before the CJ to inform the Court that the DPP had conceded that leave be granted for judicial review. We were unable to reach the DPP for comment but for Musa and his lawyers, the letter bolsters their claim that Belmopan is pulling strings in the case.
Said Musa, Charged for Theft "Well I think it is further proof that what we're dealing with here is a political persecution from day one indeed."
Lisa Shoman; "The CJ has used the words, 'I take a grim view of the fact that the DPP is asking for an adjournment on the letter head of the Attorney General's Ministry.' That has nothing to do with the grounds and everything to do with boundaries and respect and it has to do with the fact that the DPP is constitutionally a separate institution from that branch of government which the Attorney General's Ministry is.
They are of the executive branch and the judiciary, the DPP is independent and the DPP, if it wants an adjournment, if the acting DPP wants an adjournment, she should be asking for it on her own letterhead but what is even more formal protocol was for her to send a member of her staff to come and ask for an adjournment. And there is the question which I think we will need to address ourselves to as to what is the role of the DPP in this issue."
Anthony Sylvester, Attorney for Said Musa:
"Ordinarily in circumstances like this, the court will tell an applicant who has been committed that look, go to court, go to trial, and see what happens at trial. And it is only in compelling and exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that the court grants leave and the reasons on which Mr. Musa was granted leave to review the decision to commit was, as you have pointed out, that the Magistrate considered inadmissible evidence.
"In addition to that the Magistrate wrongly assumed jurisdiction and thirdly and equally important was the fact that, let me just refer to my notes, that yes, the decision was irrational and unreasonable having regard to the fact that he had discharged Mr. Ralph Fonseca who was being charged and who basically faced the same evidence and the same charge. And so that clearly had to be irrational and unreasonable. As we've been saying all along that there is no case against Mr. Musa. I could speak for myself, I am not sure...."
Lisa Shoman; Attorney for Said Musa
"Absolutely, no. Clearly this is for us more than just mere permission; we think it is a conformation that indeed our case is as strong as we have always said that it is."
There was some drama leading up to the granting of leave for judicial review because of a letter. Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl-Lyn Branker Taitt was due to argue the case on the defendant's behalf.
But this morning appearing in the DPP's place was Crown Counsel Priscilla Banner who had written to the CJ on Tuesday requesting an adjournment because the DPP was scheduled to appear in the Court of Appeal. But the CJ took great issue with the fact that Banner wrote the letter under the Attorney General's letterhead on behalf of the DPP.
The CJ declared, "The AG is not supposed to appear or write on their letterhead on behalf of the DPP...the DPP could have sent a rookie from her office or even asked a member of the Bar to appear. The DPP and the AG's Ministry are separate.
The DPP acts with no one, takes instruction from one one. Why hang on the coat-tails of the AG? It is improper! It is the perception and implication! I take a dim view of this letter."
Following the presentation of the grounds for the application by the Musa team and a brief adjournment, at eleven thirty this morning, all sides appeared again before the CJ to inform the Court that the DPP had conceded that leave be granted for judicial review. We were unable to reach the DPP for comment but for Musa and his lawyers, the letter bolsters their claim that Belmopan is pulling strings in the case.
Said Musa, Charged for Theft "Well I think it is further proof that what we're dealing with here is a political persecution from day one indeed."
Lisa Shoman; "The CJ has used the words, 'I take a grim view of the fact that the DPP is asking for an adjournment on the letter head of the Attorney General's Ministry.' That has nothing to do with the grounds and everything to do with boundaries and respect and it has to do with the fact that the DPP is constitutionally a separate institution from that branch of government which the Attorney General's Ministry is.
They are of the executive branch and the judiciary, the DPP is independent and the DPP, if it wants an adjournment, if the acting DPP wants an adjournment, she should be asking for it on her own letterhead but what is even more formal protocol was for her to send a member of her staff to come and ask for an adjournment. And there is the question which I think we will need to address ourselves to as to what is the role of the DPP in this issue."
Leave a comment