In a recent judicial ruling that clarifies procedural boundaries for civil claims against law enforcement in Belize, a High Court justice has thrown out nearly all of a prominent businessman’s sweeping lawsuit against the country’s police force, which alleged unlawful detention, physical assault, and years of systematic extortion. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajiv Goonetilleke in late June 2026, centers on a case brought by Omar Avelar against both the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General of Belize.
Avelar first submitted his formal claim to the court on February 9, 2026, more than 20 months after the incident that forms the core of his most serious allegations. The events in question date back to May 5, 2024, when Avelar was arrested and charged with three criminal offenses: failing to provide a breath or blood specimen for impaired driving testing, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, and possession of a loaded pistol containing 18 rounds of ammunition. In his civil claim, Avelar alleged that the arrest and detention were unlawful from the start. He further detailed claims of excessive force during the encounter, stating that officers choked him, stomped on his chest, left him with bruising and a split lip, and that his wallet and iPhone were never returned after the arrest.
Beyond the 2024 arrest, Avelar’s claim outlined a years-long pattern of targeted harassment and extortion by members of the police force stretching back to 2021. He specifically alleged that two named officers extorted BZD $1,200 from him via check in June 2021. He also added four additional claims of extortion: unspecified officers extorted BZD $800, BZD $650, and BZD $1,500 from him and his family members on unrecorded dates, for a total of five alleged extortion incidents. In total, Avelar sought BZD $193,250 in special damages, plus additional general damages to compensate for the emotional distress and diminished quality of life he claimed resulted from the alleged police misconduct.
Lawyers for the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General moved to have the entire claim struck from the court docket immediately, advancing two core procedural arguments. First, they noted that Belize law imposes a strict one-year limitation period for all civil actions brought against public officials acting in their official capacity, and Avelar had filed his claim far outside that window. Second, they argued that the majority of the extortion allegations were too vague and lacked the specific factual details required to meet the court’s pleading standards, making it impossible for the defense to prepare a proper response.
In his carefully structured ruling, Justice Goonetilleke split Avelar’s claims into two distinct groups to address each set of arguments separately. For the first group—covering the 2024 arrest, unlawful detention charges, alleged assault, and lost property—the justice ruled that all claims were unequivocally time-barred under existing law. Citing Section 27 of Belize’s Limitation Act, he noted that all claims against public officials acting in the course of their official duties must be filed within 12 months of the incident. He rejected Avelar’s legal argument that the alleged misconduct should be classified as an ongoing wrong that extends the limitation period, ruling that the cause of action was fully crystallized on the date of the 2024 arrest.
For the second group of claims, the extortion allegations dating back to 2021, the ruling produced a mixed outcome. All but one of the extortion claims were struck down: Justice Goonetilleke ruled that allegations involving unnamed officers and unspecified dates of extortion failed to meet the standards laid out in Civil Procedure Rule 8.7(1), which requires claimants to clearly lay out all specific facts supporting their claims. These vague allegations were therefore struck from the record.
However, one specific allegation survived both legal challenges: the 2021 extortion claim naming two individual officers, a confirmed date of the offense, and a specific amount of money extorted. Justice Goonetilleke ruled that this claim contained all the specific factual detail required by pleading rules. On the limitation issue, he further reasoned that extortion—unlike official police action taken under color of law—does not qualify as an act carried out in the execution of statutory or public duty. As such, it falls outside the scope of the one-year limitation protection that applies to official conduct. To support this reasoning, he cited a prior Privy Council decision holding that legal protections for public authorities must be interpreted narrowly, and only apply to official obligations owed to the general public, not to criminal conduct that could occur between any two private individuals.
As part of the ruling’s next steps, the defendants have been ordered to submit their formal defense to the remaining single claim by July 9, 2026, and Avelar has been granted leave to file his reply by July 24. A further case management hearing is scheduled for July 29 to set the timeline for any future trial. The justice also ordered that Avelar is responsible for covering all legal costs stemming from the successful strike-out application, with the total amount to be agreed by both parties or assessed by the court if no agreement is reached.
