Is the Thirteenth Amendment a Step Forward, or a Step Too Far?

The proposed Thirteenth Amendment is stirring up serious debate in Belize. The government says it’s about tightening laws around states of emergency, especially in areas hit hard by crime. But critics, like returning U.D.P. Chairman and attorney Mike Peyrefitte, are raising red flags. Peyrefitte argues that no law should block people from accessing the courts. In his view, if someone believes their freedom has been taken unfairly, they must have the right to challenge it in court. Anything less, he says, could be unconstitutional. So, here’s the big question: Can a government strengthen public safety without weakening individual rights? And if courts are the last line of defense for our freedoms, should any law limit access to them?

 

Mike Peyrefitte, Returning Chairman, U.D.P.

“I don’t know that you can write any law, I think that’s well established, that could prevent access to the courts. I think the court’s original jurisdiction to hear all matters would naturally, in my view, make that law unconstitutional or illegal. I believe it’s well established that no law can be passed to say [that] you cannot take a matter to court. I think all matters could be taken to court for which the court for which the court would have jurisdiction. Certainly, if someone is deprived of their liberty and they believe that it’s being done in a wrong way, I cannot imagine the court saying that they will not hear them, or hear their issues and make a determination on it.”

 

As this amendment moves through parliament, it’s not just a legal issue, it’s a test of how we balance justice, safety, and democracy.