New Assembly Bill Sparks Accountability Fears in Senate

Belize’s National Assembly is in the middle of a major shake‑up and tonight, several senators are warning that the proposed changes could erode democratic accountability. Earlier today, the senate met virtually to debate the National Assembly Powers, Privileges and Immunities Bill 2025, and the reaction was almost unanimous: senators from the opposition and civil society say the bill goes too far. At the heart of their concern is Section 16(2), a clause that would require public officers to get the Governor General’s consent before sharing certain documents or information with senate committees. Critics argue that this gives the executive sweeping control over who can testify and what can be disclosed, essentially limiting parliament’s ability to properly investigate state affairs. The United Democratic Party has also chimed in, calling on the government to rethink provisions they believe undermine the separation of powers. Tonight, we hear from both sides of the senate floor, including Lead Government Senator Eamon Courtenay and Lead Opposition Senator Patrick Faber, as they lay out why this bill is stirring such intense debate.

 

Eamon Courtenay, Lead Government Senator

“Committees of the Senate have had difficulties in bringing witnesses and securing documents to bring them before committees of the Senate. What this bill proposes is a new regime that strengthens and gives powers to committees to make requests, issues summons to witnesses for documents to be brought and to have some immunities but more importantly a very clear regime to address persons who are required to appear, answer question and required to produce documents.”

 

Patrick Faber, Lead Opposition Senator

“Our gravest concerns lie in section 16(2). That provision states that no public officer shall be required to give evidence or produce documents relating to unpublished official records or affairs of the state except with the consent of the governor general. On its face it may appear to be a procedural safeguard. But in reality it introduces a fundamental obstruction to the parliamentary inquiry process. The governor general acts on the advice of the executive and we should not forget that. So, this section effectively places the executive in a position to control who may appear before Parliamentary committees and what evidence may be disclosed. This creates a situation where parliament can summon witnesses in theory but be blocked in practice when scrutiny becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.”