The Court of Appeal has dismissed two high-profile appeals brought by the Attorney General, affirming compensation awards to former Deputy Prime Minister Hugo Patt and former Prime Minister Dean Barrow. Both men had challenged the findings of a Commission of Inquiry into the sale of government assets, arguing that their constitutional rights were violated during the process. In the case of Hugo Patt, the court upheld a Supreme Court ruling that awarded him ninety-five thousand dollars in compensatory damages and fifty thousand dollars in vindicatory damages. The court found that Patt’s right to be heard was breached when the commission failed to issue a Salmon letter or give him a chance to respond to damaging allegations. Similarly, Dean Barrow was awarded a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in compensatory damages and sixty thousand dollars in vindicatory damages. The court agreed that Barrow’s rights to natural justice and equal protection under the law were violated. While the trial judge had initially quashed only parts of the Commission of Inquiry report, the Court of Appeal expanded that order, ruling that nearly all references to Barrow must be removed due to the severity of the rights violations. The court also addressed concerns of bias raised by Barrow, particularly regarding the conduct and affiliations of the commissioners. While it found no definitive proof of bias, it acknowledged the importance of public confidence in the fairness of such inquiries. Both appeals were dismissed, and the Attorney General was ordered to pay costs.
It’s a legal showdown that’s captured the attention of both the public and the public service sector, two high-profile cases, one powerful message: contracts matter. At the center of it all is the Belize Tourism Board, now facing back-to-back courtroom defeats after terminating two of its top executives, Misty Michael and Karen Bevans, before their contracts were up. Both women took their cases to court, and both walked away with major wins. Tonight, we take a closer look at what the courts had to say, why the B.T.B.’s arguments didn’t hold up, and what these rulings mean for accountability, contract enforcement, and the future of public sector employment in Belize. Here’s News Five’s Isani Cayetano.
Isani Cayetano, Reporting
It’s a case that’s been closely watched in legal and public service circles. At the heart of it: a dispute between the Belize Tourism Board and its former Director of Marketing and Industry Relations, Misty Michael. Michael was hired permanently in 2019 and later signed a three-year employment contract in April 2020. But just over a year into that contract, she was abruptly terminated. The BTB claimed the dismissal was due to financial strain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, invoking a clause in her contract that allowed for termination in the event of a “material change in circumstances.” But Michael didn’t agree. She argued that her termination was without cause and that she was entitled to the full benefits outlined in her contract—benefits that included all remaining salary and perks for the rest of her term.
The trial court sided with Michael, awarding her BZ$217,000 in damages. The BTB appealed, raising nine separate grounds, including claims that the contract was invalid, improperly approved, and excessively generous. But in a detailed and strongly worded judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the BTB’s arguments. The court found that while there were procedural missteps—such as the Minister approving the contract without full Board involvement—these did not cancel the agreement. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BTB, who signed the contract, were found to have “ostensible authority,” meaning they appeared to have the power to act on behalf of the Board, and Michael had every reason to rely on that.
The court also rejected BTB’s claim that the contract’s termination clause was an unenforceable penalty. Instead, it ruled that the clause was a legitimate part of a negotiated agreement and not out of line with similar contracts for other senior staff. This ruling reinforces the principle that public bodies must follow their own rules, but it also protects individuals who enter contracts in good faith. It’s a win for accountability and for fair treatment in employment. It’s a case that was similar to former Director of Tourism Karen Bevans who was also dismissed in 2021.
Karen Bevans, who served as Director of Tourism from 2014 until her dismissal in 2021, took the Belize Tourism Board—or BTB—to court, claiming she was wrongfully terminated and owed the full value of her employment contract. At the heart of the case was a five-year employment agreement Bevans signed in April 2019. But when a new administration came into power in 2020, Bevans was let go in March 2021—just two years into her contract.
The BTB argued that the contract was invalid. They said it hadn’t been properly approved by the full Board or the Minister of Tourism, and that the termination clause—Clause 7.1.1—was overly generous and legally unenforceable. But Justice Geneviève Chabot disagreed.
The court found that the contract was properly approved, even if the Minister’s approval was given verbally. The judge ruled that the law does not require written approval, and that the BTB’s leadership—including its Chairman and Vice Chair—had the authority to sign the contract. “This case sets a strong precedent. It confirms that verbal ministerial approval can be valid, and that public bodies must honor their contracts—especially when they’ve benefited from the employee’s work.”
The court also rejected the BTB’s claim that the termination clause was a “penalty.” Instead, it ruled that the clause was standard for senior BTB staff and provided fair protection for Bevans, who had been praised for her performance. Bevans had already received one year’s salary as a so-called “ex gratia” payment. But the court ruled she was entitled to the full amount remaining on her contract—nearly BZ$770,000—minus that earlier payment. The BTB also tried to shift blame to three individuals: former Minister of Tourism Manuel Heredia, and former BTB Chairman Einer Gomez and Vice Chair Glenford Eiley. But the court dismissed those claims too, ruling that all three acted in good faith and within their legal authority. In the end, the Court upheld the original award, including interest and legal costs, and urged the BTB to consider clearer regulations and internal procedures for future appointments. Isani Cayetano for News Five.
Earlier this week, we brought you a story that raised eyebrows, a local attorney claimed he was denied access to his client, who is currently detained under the State of Emergency. The attorney argued that this was a clear violation of his client’s right to legal representation. But today, we followed up with Virgilio Murillo, C.E.O. of the Kolbe Foundation, who offered a different explanation. According to Murillo, the prison simply follows the rules outlined under the State of Emergency regulations. Here’s how he explained the decision.
On the Phone: Virgillo Murillo
On the Phone: Virgillo Murillo, C.E.O., Kolbe Foundation
“I am not too sure if you read the regulation governing SOEs. All I can tell you is that although I am not a lawyer, I do have a proper command of the English language and what I read in the regulations is that when people are detained on a detention order signed by the minister, they are not entitled to bail and not even the high courts can summon that these people be brought before them for anything whatsoever. So that is what we have applied for any state of emergency taken place over the years, because remember SOE is nothing new to the prison. This is our tenth SOE. So we are too familiar with how we handle these things. The particular individual the attorney had asked to come and see had no criminal charges against him. So there was nothing against him and no legitimate reason for that attorney to come here, unless he wanted to come here and ease the tension on detention on him. I am not sure if that was the objective of the attorney.”
Justice Nadine Nabie of the High Court has delivered a powerful decision that could change the way authorities respond to violent crime. It all started back in July 2020, when the government declared a state of emergency and detained sixteen men. Those men pushed back, arguing their detention was unjustified and unconstitutional. They didn’t just want to be released—they wanted the court to say loud and clear that the situation back then didn’t even warrant a state of emergency. They also claimed they were locked up without any solid reason, violating their basic rights. And that was just the beginning, they asked the court for a total of twenty different declarations. Fast forward five years, and Justice Nabie has ruled in their favor. Her decision? The men were unlawfully imprisoned, and the government now has to pay them over three hundred thousand dollars in compensation. This ruling is sparking big conversations about how effective states of emergency really are in fighting crime and whether the powers they give to the authorities are being used responsibly. News Five’s Paul Lopez has a full story.
Paul Lopez, Reporting
It was a dramatic show of force, over 300 law enforcement officers flooding Belize City in July 2020 under a state of emergency aimed at curbing violent crime. But now, a High Court ruling says that the move was unconstitutional. And the fallout? The Government of Belize must pay more than three hundred thousand dollars to sixteen men who were unlawfully detained. At the time, then-Minister of National Security Michael Peyrefitte warned of rising murders and robberies, but the court has now painted a very different picture.
Michael Peyrefitte
Michael Peyrefitte, Former Minister of National Security (File: July 7th ,2020)
“We will not tolerate any lawlessness in this country. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We don’t need anymore headache. A stiff message has already been sent to persons of interest and more stiff messages are about to come, especially if they don’t decide to straighten up.”
Earl Baptist
One of the men now serving twenty-five years for murder is also among those being compensated by the state. Earl Baptist, once detained under the 2020 state of emergency, has been awarded fifteen thousand dollars after a High Court ruled his detention back then was unlawful. He’s not alone. Fifteen others will receive payouts ranging from twelve thousand dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars. The court found that the government overstepped, saying regular crime-fighting laws could have handled the situation in Belize City’s southside. But former Minister Michael Peyrefitte strongly disagreed.
Michael Peyrefitte
“All the investigative work and trying to solve the problem from a philosophical point of view is the best solution, but that takes too much time.”
A High Court ruling has delivered a sharp rebuke to the way authorities handled the 2020 state of emergency. Justice Nadine Nabie found that the rights of sixteen men were violated: no judicial oversight, no lawful justification, and an unnecessary two-month extension. The court says their liberty was taken without cause. And yet, just two weeks ago, another state of emergency was declared, under strikingly similar circumstances. The ruling raises serious questions about how far the government can go in the name of public safety.
Richard Rosado
Richard Rosado, Commissioner of Police (File: 12th May, 2025)
“We will do everting that is possible to return normalcy, peace and stability to the streets in Belize City.”
Reporter
“Even at the cost of the rights to persons?”
Richard Rosado
“We will do everything that is necessary within the context of the law, within the context of the constitution to return normalcy to the streets of Belize City. I am not disturbed, perturbed or overwhelmed by what is happening. We will do what we need to do.”
For years, families and human rights advocates have sounded the alarm over how state of emergency powers are used in Belize City. From alleged home invasions to detentions without evidence, many say the crackdown on crime has come at the cost of civil liberties. As far back as 2018, the Human Rights Commission questioned whether these emergency measures were truly effective, or just a blunt instrument. Now, with a recent court ruling calling the 2020 SOE unconstitutional, those long-standing concerns are back in the spotlight.
Kevin Arthurs
Kevin Arthurs, Former Vice Chair, Human Rights Commission (File: 6th Sep, 2018)
“The question here is what method we use to get the result we need. If you are a doctor and doing surgery you will need the proper tools to do it. You ought not to use a hammer. The question from the human rights perspective is what tool are you using.”
Will the government fight the ruling or foot the bill? That’s the big question tonight after Justice Nabie’s landmark decision on the 2020 state of emergency. Sixteen men, once accused of being gang members, are now set to receive over three hundred thousand dollars in compensation for what the court ruled was unlawful detention. But the Government of Belize has yet to say whether it will appeal the decision or pay up. Reporting for News Five, I am Paul Lopez.
A powerful voice is weighing in on the recent court ruling surrounding the 2020 state of emergency. Prominent defense attorney Richard ‘Dickie’ Bradley says Justice Nadine Nabie’s decision is a win, not just for the sixteen claimants involved, but for every Belizean who values their constitutional rights. Bradley argues that even those accused of wrongdoing are entitled to legal protections, and that the public must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the rule of law. In a passionate statement, he urged those affected to seek legal redress, not just for compensation, but to help the country better understand the importance of civil liberties.
Dickie Bradley
Dickie Bradley, Attorney-at-Law
“I beg them publicly here, please all of you that they picked up and chance you all, go find a lawyer and get a lee money off of it, because you are going to help you country to appreciate the importance of your liberty, your right to be free, your right to be protected under the law, even though in some quarters a few of you have conducted yourselves badly, they still have rights, prisoners have rights. A horse that get chopped have rights, animals have rights. I heard from one of my colleagues that there was a complaint from one of the local television this morning that these people are bad people they suppose to lock up in jail. They should not get any money. That is a wrong view of what is happening. We all have our rights. Prisoner who are sentenced in jail for a long time still have rights. You can’t put him in no hole for thirty or sixty days. These things are going on as a matter of normalcy. It is like we have no, I don’t want to call no name and blame no minister, but what is unlawful is unlawful and what is unconstitutional we must speak up. This is how a society loses its rights. The biggest reason for losing its rights is that we don’t even know what is our right.”
Bradley’s comments come as national conversations continue around the use and limits of emergency powers in Belize.
The fallout from a recent court ruling on the 2020 state of emergency continues and now, veteran attorney Richard ‘Dickie’ Bradley is saying the implications could be far-reaching. According to Bradley, the sixteen claimants awarded compensation for unlawful detention may just be the beginning. He believes that anyone detained under a state of emergency, past or present, could be entitled to similar payouts. Bradley also dismissed the idea that a conflicting ruling from another judge should distract from what he calls a clear message: rights matter and violating them has consequences.
Dickie Bradley, Attorney-at-Law
“Both the PUP and the UDP have started out using state of emergency to fool people that we are fighting crime and we nuh the run no joke and we wah lock up them for more time, and lock up more of them. Anybody the talk about Bukele, that criminal from next door is looking at the wrong direction. Crime is caused because there are social and economic problems and lot of times they go together, social and economic problems. It is unfortunate that the monies the government will have to pay is so small. The smallest one is twelve thousand and most are eighteen and twenty, some twenty-five thousand. And the judge says a vindicatory damage each one will get seven thousand dollars more and their legal fees will get paid by the government. They could appeal all they want. They will lose. This is a signal to us that not because we find a lee possible solution to start violate people rights, when you start to violate rights it just grow and grow. Some people suggest you should start with six months. You are a journalist and you know what I know because they talk to you too. People that have nothing to do with gun lock up right now. Those people who are in prison right now, if the procedure is the same procedure that was under the UDP, which it likely is, all of them entitled to get a money, this one month one, if they were wrongly put together. And you know we need to change in the constitution, the governor general she is being called out and she has to say that as the law require that I am satisfied these people have, because it turns out to be a lie. You tell the GG all of them are criminals and she sign a thing and it is not true.”
Bradley also criticized the political use of SOEs, warning that both major parties have used them as a show of force rather than a real solution to crime. He says the real root of violence lies in deeper social and economic issues, and that violating rights only makes things worse.
Doctor Christopher Malcolm, the legal mind who recently made headlines in Belize for representing former Opposition Leader Shyne Barrow, is stepping into a prestigious new role. Come September first, Doctor Malcolm will take the helm as Dean of the Norman Manley Law School in Jamaica. While many in Belize know him for successfully challenging the legitimacy of the Unity Convention held by Tracy Taegar-Panton and the Alliance for Democracy, fewer may realize that Malcolm is a heavyweight in Caribbean legal education. A former Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands, he currently serves as a Senior Lecturer and Director of the Mona Law Institutes Unit at the University of the West Indies. Now, he’s set to lead one of the region’s top legal institutions. The Norman Manley Law School, named after Jamaican statesman Norman Manley, is one of only three schools in the Caribbean authorized to award Legal Education Certificates, alongside the Eugene Dupuch Law School in The Bahamas and the Hugh Wooding Law School in Trinidad and Tobago. Beyond the courtroom and classroom, Doctor Malcolm is a key figure in regional dispute resolution, helping shape legislation, train professionals, and build institutions that support peaceful conflict resolution. His appointment marks a new chapter for the Norman Manley Law School and a proud moment for Caribbean legal education.
Tonight, two men, one from Belize City and another from Roaring Creek, are free from murder charges. George Hyde, twenty-six, and Devaun Garcia, nineteen, were accused of the shooting death of eighteen-year-old Eaton Thompson. Hyde was twenty-three and Garcia was only sixteen when they were charged. Their murder trial came to an unexpected end when the crown counsel dropped the case in the middle of the trial. The reason? He couldn’t locate his key witness, whose testimony was crucial. On April fifteenth, the crown called two witnesses to testify about the difficulties police faced in finding the witness, despite visiting his work and home. Two weeks ago, the crown requested one more adjournment. Today, defense attorney Simeon Sampson, who represented Garcia, was ready to challenge the admissibility of the witness’s statement. He expected the crown to try to enter the witness’ statement into evidence, but instead, they dropped the case. At around 2:15 this afternoon, the crown counsel informed the court they would discontinue the case against Hyde and Garcia. Justice Candace Nanton released the men but reminded them that it does not mean an acquittal. She warned that the murder charges could be reinstated at any time. Sampson explained that the crown’s witness had given police two statements. In the first, he claimed he saw Garcia and Hyde shoot Eaton Thompson while riding his bicycle. Six months later, he recanted, saying he was forced to give the first statement. Eaton Thompson, a resident of Mahogany Heights, was sent to buy tacos for his mother but was tragically gunned down that morning and never made it back home.
Alifah Elrington is stepping down from her role as head of the Prosecution Branch at the end of July. Elrington has been with the Government of Belize for the past six years. This morning, we caught up with her at the Belize City Magistrate’s Court, where she was handling an old case involving a Mexican national and four others, including a female police officer, charged with guns and ammunition after a drug bust in Orange Walk. Elrington confirmed that she had tendered her resignation. She explained that she was appointed as a Senior Crown Counsel with responsibility for the Prosecution Branch six years ago. Now, she’s returning to private practice as an attorney. Elrington mentioned that she had over seventy days of leave outstanding at the end of December 2024, which is why she’s taking immediate leave. During her tenure, Elrington prosecuted many high-profile cases, including the case against Elmer Nah, his wife Epifania Caliz, and his brother-in-law Manuel Caliz, which ended in acquittal. She also handled several cases against police officers and numerous sex crime cases in recent years. Elrington was the prosecutor in the case against former police officer Darrel “Tutsi” Usher, son of Minister Gilroy Usher Jr., who was acquitted of firearm and ammunition charges on April 23, 2024. Her most recent case involved charges being withdrawn against COMPOL Williams’ brother, Arthur Roy Williams. Elrington also prosecuted former police officer Dean Bellini, who was convicted and sentenced to three years in 2023 by then Chief Magistrate Sharon Fraser for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply marijuana, following an Orange Walk bust.
The Judicial and Legal Services Commission has acknowledged receiving Jeremy Enriquez’s complaint against Justice Tawanda Hondora. As we previously reported, Enriquez filed a complaint alleging misconduct and judicial misbehavior during the proceedings of his recent constitutional claim. He is urging the commission to investigate Justice Hondora, claiming that during a recess, Justice Hondora was overheard saying he had already decided to dismiss the application. For context, here’s a portion of the recording where Enriquez’s attorney, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, raised the issue with Justice Hondora.
Anand Ramlogan, Attorney-at-Law
“Might I say this for the record my lord. I have seen something disturbing and I want to bring it to your attention for the record. During the break, and my juniors have informed me, they are based in Trinidad and I am based in Fort Lauderdale. During the break I am advised that unfortunately your microphone was on. They have no audience in the court and they couldn’t contact me because I went to have my breakfast. You are recorded as being overheard in saying you have made up your mind to dismiss this application already. It is unfortunate and I want to bring it to your attention because if you have made up your mind say so and I will stop talking now. If that is what the court is saying unintentionally with your microphone on and that is being heard by my juniors and they could not contact me and I am being contacted by WhatsApp that is an important matter. If you have decided this matter without telling me, without the benefits of my submission well come clean and said so, and don’t let me waste my time with the court. I am being frustrated, uninterrupted and trying to assist the court but it seems I am banging my head to a brick wall and I am looking and searching for a mindopen to suasion. But if you said that during your break then don’t waste my time.”
Justice Tawanda Hondora, High Court Judge
“Whatever information you have been told is patently incorrect.”
Anand Ramlogan
“Sorry my lord?”
Justice Tawanda Hondora
“Whatever information you have been told is patently incorrect.”
