Musa v The Attorney General et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Meerabux, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1998
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: Nos. 455 and 456 of 1997
• Date: 22 January 1998

Supreme Court

Meerabux, J.

Nos. 455 and 456 of 1997

Musa

and

The Attorney General et al

Messrs. D. B. Courtenay S. C., E. L. Flowers S. C., P. Zuniga, E. Courtenay, G. Smith and F. Fonseca for the applicants

Mr. G. Gandhi S. C., Solicitor General for the respondents

Constitutional law - Parliamentary privilege — Plaintiff sought a declaration that the House of Representatives established by s.55 of the Constitution has no power to find any of its members guilty of contempt and that the contempt order made against him was unconstitutional — Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass judgment in the matter of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Representatives — Jagan v. Gajraj [1963] 5 W.I.R. 353 considered — Court found that it did have jurisdiction — Court held that the Supreme Court is not competent to inquire into complaints involving the internal management of the procedure of the National Assembly — The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the existence and extent of any privilege or powers claimed by the Belize House of Representatives — Deliberately misleading the House is a grave contempt — The House and Speaker do have jurisdiction to punish for contempt — Motions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

1 There are two applications before the court which were both filed on the same date, 30th October 1997. One is an ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review, while the other is a motion for constitutional redress. I find that both applications are by the same parties, founded on the same facts and raise the same issues. I will therefore deal with them together.

2 The facts giving rise to these applications may be briefly stated as follows. The applicant is the duly elected member of the House of Representatives for the Fort George Division. He is also the Leader of the Opposition People's United Party. At a sitting of the House held the 17th October, 1997, the Member for the Queen's Square Division, Honourable Dean Barrow, moved the following motion:–

“WHEREAS the records of this Honourable House disclose that the member for Fort George on the 21st March, 1991, stated to the House that “immediately on assuming office (in 1989) the People's United Party Government terminated the sale of passports.”

AND WHEREAS the public evidence shows, and the member's own further statement to the House on 5th November, 1993, accepts, that the statement on 21st March, 1991 was not a true statement and that the member knew at the time he made it that it was untrue.

AND WHEREAS these facts show that the member deliberately misled the House.

AND WHEREAS the deliberately misleading of the House is a violation of the privileges of the House and a contempt of the House.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House determines and declares the member for Fort George to be guilty of a grave contempt of the House and requests the speaker to punish the said contempt appropriately.”

3 A debate on the motion followed in which the applicant and members of his party also spoke. After making their contribution to the debate the applicant and his party members walked out of the House. The motion was then passed by the House in the absence of the opposition members whereupon the speaker announced that he would postpone the sentence to the next sitting of the House and he directed the Clerk “to have a notice to be served upon the member to appear before this House to be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing this type of procedure.”

4 In this exparte application for Judicial Review (Action No. 455) the applicant seeks the following reliefs:–

• a. A Declaration that the House of Representatives established by section 55 of the Belize Constitution has no power to punish any of its members for contempt;

• b. An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the decision of the Speaker of the House of Representatives Bernard Q. A. Pitts made on the 17th October, 1997 that the motion moved by the Member for the Queen's Square Division affected the privileges of the House and that therefore the House had jurisdiction to entertain the motion;

• (3) An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the motion passed by the House of Representatives on the 17th October, 1997 by which the House determined and declared the Member for the Fort George Division to be guilty of a grave contempt of the House and requested the Speaker to punish the said contempt appropriately;

• (4) An Order prohibiting the Speaker whether by himself his servants and or agents from attempting to summon, order, arrest, reprimand, fine, suspend, expel or imprison or seeking in any other way to control, punish or discipline the Member for the Fort George Division for the said alleged contempt;

• (5) A declaration that the motion passed by the House of Representatives on the 17th October 1997 by which the House determined and declared the Member for the Fort George Division to be guilty of a grave contempt of the House and requested the speaker to punish the said contempt appropriately is illegal;

  AND that all proceedings related to and arising from the said motion passed in the House of Representatives be stayed until after the hearing of the motion or further order herein.

• 3. The grounds upon which the said reliefs are sought are as follows:

  • (a) The House of Representatives exceeded its jurisdiction and has no power to adjudicate upon or to punish its members for contempt;

  • (b) The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives who voted in favour of the motion acted unfairly and in breach of the principles of natural justice in arriving at their decisions in that

    • (i) the member for the Fort George Division was given no notice of the said motion or opportunity properly to prepare his defence;

    • (ii) the Speaker and the Members who voted in favour of the motion were biased against the member for the Fort George Division;

    • (iii) the members who voted in favour of the motion acted as judges in their own cause.

  • (c) Even if there is a power to punish for contempt, it is an abuse of that power to postpone any action thereon for four years after the alleged admission of the contempt. Such delay justifies the legitimate inference that the proceedings were commenced in bad faith and for an ulterior purpose.

5 In his constitutional redress motion (Action No. 456) the applicant seeks the following reliefs:–

• 1. A declaration that the purported determination and declaration of the House of Representatives made on the 17th day of October, 1997 that the applicant is guilty of a grave contempt of the House and the request by the House that the Speaker punish the said contempt appropriately is unconstitutional and a violation of the provisions of section 6 of the Constitution of Belize.

• 2. A declaration that any act by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to punish the applicant in consequence of the purported determination and declaration of the House whether by imprisonment, reprimand, fine, suspension or expulsion from the House of Representatives or otherwise is unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 16 of the Constitution of Belize.

• 3. A declaration that any punishment imposed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consequence of the purported determination and declaration of the House made on the 17th day of October, 1997 has no effect in law and is not binding on the applicant.

• 4. A declaration that the assumption by the House of Representatives of the power to adjudicate upon an alleged contempt of the House violates the principle of the separation of powers and is unconstitutional.

• 5. A declaration that any act of the Speaker to punish the applicant in consequence of the purported determination and declaration of the House of Representatives is in violation of the principle of separation of powers and is unconstitutional.

• 6. A declaration that the House of Representatives has no jurisdiction to adjudicate and punish a member of the House for contempt of the House unless such jurisdiction has been expressly conferred by statute upon the House of Representatives.

• 7. A declaration that the unfair manner in which the applicant was found guilty of a contempt of the House violates sections 3 and 6 of the Constitution of Belize.

• 8. Such further and other relief as may be just.

• 9. An order restraining the Speaker of the House of Representatives from imposing any punishment on the applicant whether by imprisonment, reprimand, fine, suspension or expulsion from the House or otherwise in respect of the alleged grave contempt.

6 Both applications are supported by an affidavit sworn to by the applicant which I set out fully and which states:–

“I, SAID WILBERT MUSA of No.7‘E’ Street, Kings Park, Belize City, Attorney-at-Law, MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:

• 1. I am a Senior Counsel, a duly elected member of the House of Representatives for the Fort George Division, the Leader of the Opposition People's United Party and the applicant in these proceedings.

• 2. On Friday, October 17th, 1997 I attended a sitting of the House of Representatives in the Assembly Chamber in Belmopan which was scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m.

• 3. According to the Orders of the Day, the only item of substance on the agenda was a motion seeking the House's approval for a bond issue of US $10 million.

• 4. Shortly before the commencement of the sitting I saw the member for the Queen's Square Division coming from the direction of Speaker's office Bernard Q. A. Pitts.

• 5. At the commencement of the sitting at 10:27 a.m., the Speaker announced that he had received a notice from the member for the Queen's Square Division in accordance with Standing Order 29 having to do with privileges of the House. The Speaker then called on the member for the...