Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Dean Barrow and the Twist of FATE! - and the multiple court cases against Lord Ashcroft

When a few months ago the then PUP administration wanted to make the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) the Court of Last Appeal for Belize, replacing the Privy Council in London (I fully agree with and support this move), the PUP did not have the necessary three fourths majority in the House of Representatives to pass the necessary amendment to the Constitution. The then Leader of the Opposition. Dean Barrow, refused to support the move, later agreeing only after attempting to 'blackmail the government', i.e. making demands on the Government that would have emasculated the PUP. The motion was withdrawn.

FATE is now has a cynical smile for Dean Barrow, now Prime Minister, and blessed with the the required three fourths majority! IF ..... if only he had agreed to replace the Privy Council with the CCJ back then, he would not have to worry about the Lord dragging him and the Government across the Atlantic in the multiple court cases against Ashcroft, should the Lord not have his way.

"Bottom Line"

8 comments:

Democrates said...

I completely agree. I took a course this semester that focused on judicial legitimacy. And for the first time I questioned how can a Court that is 5000 miles away (England) make decisions that are unrelated to their community. We are an independent nation; and with independence, we should be able to make rulings irrespective of previous colonial relationships. This is a simple byproduct of colonialism and tradition.

Anonymous said...

This post is completely and entirely inaccurate, and I am appalled that whoever wrote it would be so irresponsible as to post it on this blog.

Aschroft has taken Dean Barrow's Government to ARBITRATION in London. An arbitration clause was contained in the UHS Guarantee. The Arbitration clause said if any quarrel happened then it would be taken to London. WHO would sign such a thing, you must be thinking. SAID MUSA and FRANCIS FONSECA when they signed teh UHS Guarantee- That's who.

What on earth does this have to do with the Privy COuncil and the CCJ??????? You guys disgust me.

Unsilent said...

no need to be disgusted with us or the blog. we could easily remove your comment and that would be a sad thing, however the blog's purpose is to allow for everyone to give their "two cents" on the posts. The blog doesn't claim to be a media house and so if we posted something inaccurate, then by all means, call us on it.

As stated before in this blog; the blog is neither pro or against current or past government. It is here to express the views of those contributing who happen to fall on both sides of the political fence.

So, in regard to your comment, thanks for bringing that point out. Much appreciated and we hope that you return and comment again.

Democrates said...

In regard to the above anonymous comment, I too would like to thank you for your contribution to this blog. As a contributing member, I see it as necessary and valuable to hear both sides of the issues raised in this blog. However, putting biases aside, I really cannot see anything inaccurate about the original piece; the facts, as I'm aware, show that Dean Barrow did not support the bill to make the CCJ the highest court for Belize. And you are also right in saying that Ashcroft (together with the PUP admin.) allowed for arbitration to take place in England by stipulating it in the contract. This issue may be taken from several perspectives. In this case, 'The Unsilent' chose to take the stance that Dean Barrow's decision NOT to support the bill has now affected his own administration. If I have said anything that is inaccurate, I welcome your corrections and/or comments.

Anonymous said...

democrates, the issue CANNOT be taken from several perspectives. The contract was signed, sealed and delivered with the arbitration clause in it. Whether Barrow supported the CCJ move or not is irrelevant - arbitration would still have taken place in England. Even if the CCJ WAS the last court of appeal, arbitration would still have been in England. Therefore, Barrow's decision has NOT (and could not) affect his own administration in any way.

Anonymous II

Democrates said...

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the proposal for the CCJ came before the signing of the contract. If it did, the contract's stipulation in regard to court jurisdiction would then be deemed unconstitutional.

RebelThinker said...

Ah, I'm a little late in reading this, but thoroughly enjoyed it and the comments that followed. Sorry to burst Anon's bubble, but Dean and his boys did miss the boat at the time, and Ashcroft has in fact vowed to take several of the cases now pending up to the Privy Council if that's what it takes to get his way. ACB is one example, Sagis may very well get there too.

Obviously, Ashcroft feels that his fellow Lords will grant him victory, and equally obviously, this could have been avoided if we'd gone the CCJ route. No guarantee of victory for either party in either jurisdiction, mind you, but the CCJ is certainly a more relevant playing field.

Democrates said...

Good point. If the Ministers of the House (from both sides) had recognized the value of judicial sovereignty, they would have certainly lobbied for making the CCJ the highest court of appeals. Because of their failure to do so, it has resulted in a setback that could hinder FUTURE cases. I stress that both sides share blame in regard to this issue.