分类： politics

A week after the Office of the Ombudsman instructed the Attorney General of Belize to adhere to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and disclose details of government contracts with private attorneys, no official progress has been reported. Civic activist Jeremy Enriquez revealed on October 23 that the Ombudsman’s Office has yet to provide any updates since its directive on October 15. While it remains unclear whether the Attorney General’s Chambers has responded, the lack of communication suggests no developments have occurred. However, the two-week compliance period granted to the Attorney General has not yet lapsed.

The directive stemmed from a formal review by the Ombudsman under Sections 35, 37, and 39 of the FOIA, initiated after Enriquez contested the Attorney General’s refusal in September to release information on payments to private attorneys retained by the Belizean government. The Ombudsman ruled that the contracts, involving public funds, constitute public records and cannot be entirely withheld. The review clarified that ministries may redact only specific sections of documents exempt under Section 28(1) of the FOIA but cannot impose blanket secrecy on financial details of public interest. Consequently, the Ombudsman mandated the disclosure of the names of attorneys or law firms engaged by the government and the total amounts paid to each, while safeguarding legitimately confidential portions.

This case has emerged as a critical test of Belize’s transparency framework, scrutinizing the government’s chief legal adviser for compliance with a statute designed to uphold the rule of law. The Ombudsman’s decision emphasized that the FOIA is not a discretionary policy but a statutory obligation ensuring accountability for public expenditures.

With one week remaining before the compliance deadline, the focus now shifts to whether the Attorney General’s Chambers will act within the stipulated timeframe. Failure to comply could prompt Enriquez to seek judicial review before the Supreme Court under Section 39 of the FOIA, potentially transforming the dispute into a landmark case for institutional transparency. For now, Enriquez remains cautiously observant, noting that the process is still pending but time remains for the Attorney General to respond.

Senator Patrick Faber of the United Democratic Party (UDP) has launched a scathing critique against the Briceño administration, accusing it of hastily pushing through a $330 million acquisition of Fortis Belize Limited and its associated electricity assets. Faber described the move as yet another example of high-stakes financial deals being executed without proper scrutiny. Speaking at a UDP press conference on Thursday, Faber revealed that legislators were asked to approve the deal without access to essential evaluations of the Mollejon, Chalillo, and Vaca dams. Although senators eventually received reports from NIRA Consulting and consultant Mr. Sunderland, Faber argued that the rushed process—requiring evaluation, study, and Senate approval in a single sitting—was “unconscionable” and indicative of the government’s attempt to “pull a fast one.” The transaction, which includes $110 million for Fortis Belize Limited and an additional $36 million for Fortis Inc.’s 33.3% stake in Belize Electricity Limited (BEL), was approved by both legislative chambers within a single weekend. Faber disclosed that Prime Minister Briceño had already signed the agreement before the debate concluded, forcing legislators to retroactively endorse the decision. Faber condemned the government’s approach, claiming it undermines parliamentary oversight and burdens Belizeans with new domestic borrowing through a “special budgetary appropriation.” He warned that this could destabilize the country’s financial system, as the funds would compete with those Belizeans rely on for personal loans. Faber also questioned the government’s plan to divest the hydropower assets through Hydro Belize Limited, chaired by Ambassador Lynn Young, suggesting that the eventual resale to local banks, credit unions, and the Social Security Board could disproportionately benefit politically connected investors. He labeled the scheme a “pension plan for the boys,” arguing that the public would bear the debt while private interests profit. Faber drew parallels to the 2011 nationalization of BEL under a UDP administration, which aimed to protect Belizeans from unfair rates and foreign control. He asserted that the current deal reverses these gains, prioritizing expedience over transparency. Additionally, Faber dismissed the administration’s claims that the buyout would lower electricity rates, warning that local investors would prioritize profits, potentially leading to higher costs for consumers. The UDP has called for full financial disclosure, including details on tax exemptions for future owners, before the deal is finalized.

A recently signed two-year agreement between Belize and the United States has ignited widespread debate over transparency, sovereignty, and the future of bilateral relations. The pact, finalized on October 20, 2025, by Belize’s Foreign Minister Francis Fonseca, aims to enhance refugee protections and facilitate safe transfers of third-country nationals seeking asylum in the U.S. However, the exclusion of Guatemalans and the lack of public consultation have raised eyebrows. Critics, including the United Democratic Party (UDP), have questioned the secrecy surrounding the deal, emphasizing its potential impact on Belize’s immigration policies, border security, and taxpayer burden. Opposition Leader Tracy Taegar-Panton highlighted the absence of parliamentary debate and full disclosure, calling it a concerning trend under the Briceno administration. While Belize values its longstanding diplomatic ties with the U.S., the opaque nature of this agreement has fueled skepticism about its broader implications for national sovereignty and social infrastructure.

In a significant development, Belize and the United States have recently signed a two-year agreement aimed at providing a safe haven for refugees deported from the U.S. The deal, which excludes Guatemalans, targets nationals from Central America and the Caribbean. However, the agreement has sparked widespread debate, with critics raising concerns about its implications for Belize’s population and economy, particularly amid ongoing inflation challenges. Foreign Affairs Minister Francis Fonseca addressed these issues in a recent interview, emphasizing the transparency and procedural rigor of the agreement’s implementation. Fonseca confirmed that the agreement has been shared with the Senate for ratification and will require amendments to Belize’s domestic legislation, including the Refugees Act. He also highlighted the need for finalized operational procedures between Belize and the U.S. before the agreement can take effect. Importantly, Fonseca assured that the process would be open and transparent, with a cap of no more than ten refugees transferred to Belize annually. The agreement’s focus on Central American and Caribbean nationals, excluding Guatemala, underscores Belize’s strategic approach to managing refugee inflows while safeguarding its national interests.

The United Democratic Party (UDP) is intensifying its call for an independent investigation into the controversial Joseph Budna case, which has sparked widespread concern over human rights violations in Belize. Opposition Leader Tracy Taegar-Panton has condemned the alleged beating, kidnapping, and subsequent handover of Budna to what she describes as ‘hostile territory,’ emphasizing that the issue transcends Budna’s personal history. Instead, she argues, it is about safeguarding the fundamental rights of Belizean citizens against potential government overreach. Taegar-Panton has accused the Briceno administration of deliberately avoiding accountability, suggesting that the government is relying on rising utility costs to divert public attention from the case. She has firmly stated that the UDP stands for the rule of law and insists that an independent probe is essential to uncover the truth. The opposition leader also clarified that her stance is not in defense of Budna’s alleged past actions but rather a broader call to protect citizens’ rights. As public pressure mounts, the question remains whether the government will heed these demands and initiate a formal investigation.