Belize judge grills Ramlogan on election case

A HIGH COURT judge in Belize has raised concerns about former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, who is representing three Belizeans who sought an interim injunction to halt the March 12 general election.

Justice Tawanda Hondora denied the interim injunction but posed questions to Ramlogan on procedural aspects of his client’s case.

Ramlogan represents Jeremy Enriquez, Rudolph Norales and Jessica Tulcey in an election law case against the Attorney General of Belize and the country’s Elections and Boundaries Commission, made an interested party in the court proceedings. The decision was delivered on February 12 and has made front-page news.

Hondora, presiding over the case, ordered Ramlogan to provide detailed explanations addressing several questions about the handling of affidavits and exhibits submitted to the court.

The judge questioned the apparent use of digitally superimposed template signatures on affidavits and exhibits, noting that both Enriquez’s and Commissioner of the Supreme Court N Carla Sebastian’s signatures appeared to be electronically added rather than contemporaneously signed. This prompted the court to demand answers on who authorised this practice, why it was deemed necessary, and how it complied with legal standards.

The judge’s questions to Ramlogan included whether he ran an office and legal practice in Belize; he should state his arrangements with the firm Estevan Perera and Company LLP on the case, and why those arrangements were not disclosed to the court; identify the processes behind drafting, signing, authenticating and filing all affidavits and exhibits, along with his role; state the origin, source and reason for the use of digital template signatures; the identity of the person who inserted them into the legal documents; and indicate the steps taken to ensure full compliance with legal and procedural rules during the filing process.

Ramlogan was given two days to explain. Contacted on February 19, he declined comment, only saying the matter was being appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay of Belize told Belizean media, “The judge has made some orders against Mr Ramlogan, personally, in the judgment. I believe, in my many years of practice, I have never seen a practitioner behave so disrespectfully, disgracefully and so inconsistent with the traditions of the bar.

“It was a most regrettable and I cannot believe that a senior counsel believes that he can come from Trinidad and Tobago and behave that way in our courts.

“And so, I am going to see what happens as a result of the orders that the judge has made against him.”

Courtenay represented the Attorney General of Belize in the case.

In the ruling, the judge focused heavily on issues with affidavits and supporting documents filed by the claimants.

He noted that the digital template signatures of Enriquez and commissioner of the High Court N Carla Sebastian appeared superimposed onto affidavits and other supporting documents.

The judge also noted that affidavits were not compliant with the court’s civil proceeding rules and lacked proper authentication. This resulted in the exclusion of the affidavits as evidence.

Hondora said, “In sum, in this matter, I hold that the affidavits and exhibits used in support of the application for interim relief were not validly signed and authenticated. Somebody and it is not clear who, digitally inserted on Mr Jeremy Enriquez’s affidavit the latter’s signature as well as the signature and stamp for an N Carla Sebastian, a commissioner of the High Court.”

He added, “In view of these inexplicable anomalies, it would be improper to presume the truthfulness and accurateness of the contents of the affidavits filed in this matter and to use them in determining the claimants’ application for interim relief.

“Following the exclusion of the affidavits, there is not before me any coherent application on which interim relief can properly be considered and a decision made upholding the reliefs claimed.

“Consequently, I dismiss the application for interim relief on the grounds that it is inadequately pleaded and is not supported by any admissible and coherent evidence that would sustain a claim for interim relief on the stated grounds.”

Hondora also noted that further orders may be issued on the “drafting, signing, purported authentication and filing of pleadings.”

He added, “Without passing judgment on the pleadings and documents filed in this matter, I should stress the general principle that it would be an abuse of this court’s process for a person to knowingly procure and use in litigation proceedings digital template copy signatures to complete court processes such as claim forms, affidavits and other materials to avoid having parties personally signing relevant documents.

“This principle mitigates against the risks of fraud on the court and pleadings being filed by third parties not entitled to do so.”