Jerry Enriquez’s Redistricting Battle Reaches CCJ

A long‑running fight over Belize’s election system landed before the Caribbean Court of Justice today, as Jeremy Enriquez pushed to revive his stalled redistricting challenge. Backed by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan and King’s Counsel Peter Knox, Enriquez is contesting a series of Court of Appeal rulings that blocked his bid to delay the 2025 general election until electoral boundaries were updated. His case, first filed in February 2025, argues that outdated divisions violate Belizeans’ right to equal representation. But the legal battle quickly got tangled in procedure. The Court of Appeal struck out three of his appeals: one tied to the High Court’s dismissal of his injunction, one over a wasted‑cost order against Ramlogan, and another after Enriquez tried to have Justice Tawanda Hondora recuse himself. Now at the CCJ, Enriquez hopes the regional court will give his claims new life. And behind today’s technical arguments is a bigger question: can Belize head into another election without fixing long‑criticized inequalities in constituency sizes?

 

Anand Ramlogan SC, Attorney-at-law

“There are three applications for special leave, and we will address those in the context made at the case management hearing whereby we seek to treat the hearing of the application as the substantive hearing of the appeal. The genesis of these matters arise out of a claim filed on the tenth of February 2025, which seems like a rather long time. That claim was a constitutional claim which had to do with provision in the Belizean constitution that requires redistricting to ensure there is an equality of votes. And I close by saying this, this is an entirely exceptional case and the axis of this case is located in the fertile soil of the right to a fair hearing. Bias is inextricably and obviously intertwined with the concept of the right of a fair hearing and in this case this is the apex court and our complaint is that the right to a fair hearing has been compromised.”

 

Peter Knox KC, Attorney-at-law

“In paragraph twelve, the judge is recorded, and there is a statute of declaration that says, “I have not dismissed it as yet. I am just gong through the motion, but I will clamp down on him when I get back”. Now, I fully appreciate this may not be necessary. But this is just a background to the cost order and you may say we don’t need to get into that. But I do submit that this evidence has not been contradicted by anyone.”

 

CCJ Scrutinizes Fate of Enriquez’s Tossed-Out Appeals

 

Inside the courtroom today, the spotlight shifted from the personalities involved to a more fundamental question: is there even a case left for the Caribbean Court of Justice to decide? Attorney Illiana Swift appeared for the Attorney General, while Hector Guerra represented the Elections and Boundaries Commission. But with the general election already over and several of the original disputes now considered moot, the judges pushed past the legal jargon and got to the heart of it, what, if anything, still needs the CCJ’s attention? What was once a sprawling legal battle filled with injunctions, appeals, and procedural detours has now boiled down to a single issue: whether three separate matters, all struck out at the Court of Appeal, deserve to move forward at the region’s highest court.

 

Illiana Swift, Attorney-at-law

“I believe that it is important to recall where we are in these proceedings. What was before the Court of Appeal was a preliminary objection to a notice that was filed prior to the order being perfected. So, what the applicants are seeking special leave to appeal is the striking out of that notice of appeal. The underlining issue with respect to the notice of appeal is now moot. The election has been held and as the applicants accepted, they are no longer seeking that injunction in the High Court. With respect to the second application in relation to the wasted cost, that appeal was struck out because the court of appeal found that leave to appeal was required. So, in both matters there was no determination on the substantive issue. with respect to the third application, that application before the Court of Appeal was an application for leave to appeal the CMC order by learned trial judge with respect to the application for recusal. There was no decision by that judge on the application to recuse. It was a CMC order made, given directions on the application.”

 

As the hearing unfolded, one thing became clear, the CCJ isn’t just reviewing paperwork; it’s trying to determine whether this long‑running fight has any live questions left to answer.

 

Attention readers: This online newscast is a direct transcript of our evening television broadcast. When speakers use Kriol, we have carefully rendered their words using a standard spelling system.

 

Watch the full newscast here: