The Prime Minister of Belize and The Attorney General of Belize v Alberto Vellos, Dorla Dawson, Yasin Shoman and Darrell Carter (Belize)

A statutory referendum requirement is a legal fetter on constitutional legislation only where the referendum forms a necessary step in the legislative process. A merely consultative or advisory referendum imposes no legal obligation on the legislature, so the referendum and constitutional amendment processes remain independent. Such a requirement does not purport to alter the Constitution, although compliance may be enforced by judicial review and disregarded obligations may have political consequences. The obligation arose when the constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced and first read, with the request made in time for the result to inform the second reading. It did not survive fundamental amendments made during the second reading.

Four Belizean citizens sought judicial review after the Government introduced a Bill proposing amendments to constitutional protections for personal liberty and property, alongside a Bill removing the mandatory Part II referendum requirement in the Referendum Act 1999. The Chief Justice declared that the proposed amendments had to be submitted to the electorate. The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed the Government’s appeal and affirmed that order.

During the legislative process the Amendment Bill was substantially altered, and the Referendum (Amendment) Act 2008 came into force. The appeal concerned the validity and legal effect of the referendum requirement, the date on which the obligation arose, whether it survived the Bill’s amendments or the later Act, and the propriety of the interim injunction.

Appeal allowed. The Board noted that related proceedings concerning the constitutionality of the Amendment Bill had become moot after further amendments. It nevertheless addressed the referendum issues.

1. Nature of the referendum. The statutory scheme was consultative or advisory. It did not make the referendum a necessary step in the legislative process, and the referendum result imposed no legal obligation on the National Assembly. The referendum process and the constitutional amendment process could therefore proceed independently. The requirement did not purport to alter the Constitution of Belize or operate as a legal fetter, although the obligation could be enforced by judicial review. Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights (1998) Ltd v Marshall-Burnett and another [2005] UKPC 3 illustrated the different case of a referendum made an integral part of the legislative process. The distinction was supported by Hawke v Smith 253 US 221 (1920) and Kimble v Swackhamer 439 US 1385 (1978).
2. Timing. The obligation arose when the Amendment Bill was introduced and given its first reading on 25 April 2008. It did not arise merely from an earlier proposal, nor only after completion of the legislative process. The Prime Minister had to request the Writ of Referendum early enough for the result to be known before expiry of the 90-day period preceding the second reading.
3. Effect of amendments. A mandatory referendum concerning the Bill in its original form could not sensibly persist after fundamental changes made during the second reading. The obligation to hold a referendum in relation to the original proposals therefore ended at that stage.
4. Subsequent legislation and injunction. The Board did not decide whether section 28(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act gave the later Referendum (Amendment) Act 2008 retroactive effect, because the obligation had already ceased. The interim injunction restraining assent to the amending referendum Bill should not have been granted.
5. The Board declared that the Prime Minister was no longer under any obligation to request the Writ of Referendum directed by the Chief Justice and advised that the appeal be allowed. Costs submissions were to be made in writing within six weeks.

1. Privy Council: Allowed the appeal and declared that the Prime Minister was no longer obliged to request the Writ of Referendum ordered below.
2. Court of Appeal of Belize: Dismissed the Government’s appeal and affirmed the Chief Justice’s orders requiring submission of the proposed constitutional amendments to the electorate.
3. Chief Justice Conteh: Granted judicial review relief and declared that, on conclusion of the legislative process, the relevant constitutional amendments should be put to a referendum. He also granted an interim injunction restraining assent to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, which he later discharged.