Hon. Tracy Panton surrounded by supporters and party officials after trial
Justice Hondora reserves judgment in trial for who is the real UDP
BELIZE CITY, Mon. Mar. 31, 2025
With the people having spoken on March 12, it was perhaps too much to expect that the adults inside the UDP would put all their differences behind them, and immediately start pulling together going forward in the interest of the Opposition and the nation that depends on their contribution to our democracy. Apparently, the healing and making up process will take some more time, and the High Court judge will perhaps determine how much time that will be.
Moses “Shyne” Barrow – Immediate Past Leader, UDP
The trial for case 661 of 2024 to decide who is the real United Democratic Party (UDP) has now concluded, and High Court Justice Tawanda Hondora has reserved his judgment for a date to be announced. Today’s proceedings in open court lasted about four hours and centred around two matters: the validity of the October 20, 2024 unity convention of the Alliance for Democracy (AFD) at which Tracy Panton was declared interim UDP leader; and the expulsion of Panton, et al. by the Moses “Shyne” Barrow Central Executive and National Party Council (NPC).
While Barrow appeared accompanied only by his attorney, Dr. Christopher Malcolm, Panton’s supporters and officials filled the courtroom, and a few spilled over onto Battlefield Park. She was joined by the second Respondent, Phillipa Griffith-Bailey, as well as by 2nd Deputy Leader, Beverly Williams, and UDP senator designates Patrick Faber and Sheena Pitts. Absent were the other Claimants – Chairman, Michael Peyrefitte; Deputy Chairman, Alberto August; 1st Deputy Leader, Hugo Patt; and Secretary General, Shary Medina. In Patt’s case, he was represented by his attorney, Estevan Perera, who notified the Court that Patt was withdrawing from the claim. As has been reported, after the March 12 general elections, Patt declared support for Panton as UDP leader.
Dr. Malcolm made short opening submissions, arguing that the case centred around the breach of the UDP constitution and rules, which should render the unity convention null and void. He maintained that the process of holding a convention is not ceremonial, it is substantive; and that Panton’s faction had no authority to issue a call for one, as that was the function of Secretary General Medina who was described as a gatekeeper who vets the delegates who can vote. Since Medina was not engaged by the Panton faction as they went about organizing the unity convention, Dr. Malcolm insists that there was a breach of the constitution and rules.
Peter Knox KC – Counsel for Tracy Panton, et al.
King’s Counsel Peter Knox, on behalf of the Respondents, held that once the required number of party delegates had filed a petition for a convention, it was mandatory for one to be held. Instead, he argued, the Chairman blocked and frustrated the holding of a national convention, contravening the will of the delegates. In the case of Panton issuing a call for a convention, Knox made the point that Medina was part of the camp which was blocking the holding of a convention, and therefore they could not have reasonably expected she would have fulfilled her duties. Knox pointed out that the constitution does not outline what should happen if the Secretary General does not comply with her obligations, and because the “constitution doesn’t say one way or the other – whether she [Panton] could or couldn’t – and therefore she could. Nothing prevented her from doing so…They were in breach. They didn’t do what they were supposed to be doing; so of course, Mrs. Panton was entitled to give effect to the delegates’ rights the way she did.” Knox also shared that there is a record of the delegates who voted, and that can be verified.
In an interview after the trial, when Barrow was asked what standing he retains in the case, given that he has resigned as UDP leader, he shared that he is still a member of the central executive of the party as immediate past party leader. Asked about his final objective in continuing the case, Barrow affirmed that “for those of us that would want to be prime minister of this country one day, or to sit in Cabinet, or even to sit in the National Assembly, we have to demonstrate to the public that we adhere to the rule of law, and that we will be compliant with whatever oath of office it is that we take.” Barrow said he demonstrated that by resigning after Chairman Peyrefitte – whom he described as the ultimate authority after the NPC and the national convention – shared his opinion that he should do so. Though Barrow says Peyrefitte had spoken to Patt, who understood that he should retain the interim leadership until a national convention is called, things proceeded differently. Barrow says Panton still calls herself the interim leader, when he and the other Claimants and “the majority” continue to reject them as the rightful leadership and central executive. He added, “Patt has no authority to hand over the party to Tracy Panton,” and as such, they had to continue with the court case because nothing was solved by his resignation. According to Barrow, his expectation was that once he resigned, Panton would have asked Patt and Vice Chairman August to call an NPC so that a convention could be held.
Hon. Tracy Panton (center) – Leader of the Opposition
Barrow said that the decision to proceed with the case is also hinged on the aspect of damages, because “there are significant damages to be had for that [the unity convention] which caused many of my colleagues to lose their seat; cost me to lose my seat, in my opinion. There are valid arguments to be made, and for the sake of democracy.”
For her part, Panton described the continuation of the case as an academic exercise, given that the people of Belize and the delegates of the UDP have spoken. Expressing confidence in their arguments, Panton affirmed, “I don’t know how we reverse the will of the people, and I don’t know how you thwart the will of our delegates.”
Barrow today shared that there are people in the AFD who are asking for the constitution to be amended so that anyone can offer themselves for leader. He continued, “so the support that she may think that she has is not necessarily there.” He shared that petitions are circulating for others to run for leader against Panton. Panton responded that there will be a comprehensive review of the constitution, and rejected Barrow’s declaration of petitions being circulated. She called it a completely untrue statement, and accused Barrow of “continuing to cause chaos and spread lies in this party.” She reminded that a declaration was signed by a large majority of standard bearers at their Biltmore meeting on March 18 to move the party forward under her leadership.
Panton is set to hold an NCP meeting on April 5, and we asked if they should not wait for the case to be decided. She told us that it is important for the wider UDP family to receive an update, and also to plan a way forward.
On the matter of the expulsion of Panton, Patrick Faber, Beverly Williams and John Saldivar, Knox argued that the constitution and the principle of natural justice were not followed, as Panton, et al. were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. Responding to the apparent contradiction that the Respondents asked for the constitution to be followed in regards to their expulsion, yet they did not abide by the constitution to hold their convention, Knox stated that there is no ambiguity in the constitution as to the process for expulsion, whereas in the case of the convention, the constitution does not expressly speak to what should occur when the unexpected happens and a party official refuses to “give effect to the delegates’ requisition.”
The matter of costs is left to be decided.
British Caribbean News
