Herman Longsworth and David Craig were not present at this morning’s Supreme Court hearing. Longsworth’s attorney Michael Young conceded that the matter must now be trashed out in court. Young argued that Longsworth’s contract was successfully completed on April eleventh 2011 with a liability period of six months that expired on October twenty-fourth, 2011. Young provided that information in an affidavit from Longsworth which included a statement from Duane Thurton of Thurton and Associates.
Michael Young, Attorney for Herman Longsworth
“There was a contract for certain works to be done which was signed back in August 2009, but that contract was completed, the works under that contract were performed and that was certified by the architects and designers, Anthony Thurton and Associates and they have provided a letter to that effect. So our fundamental position is that you have a contract between two parties and the two parties are saying that that contract is at an end. It ended at the very latest on the twenty-fourth of October 2011. And the architects responsible for the carrying out of the contract are also saying that it was finished on the on the twenty-fourth of October 2011; then that contract must be finished. It doesn’t mean that the court is saying that they agree with the position of the petitioner, but the court is saying that this is a serious issue and that there is a ground for having this matter ventilated; dealt with before the court and so it will be dealt with.”
“Mister Young in regards to the layman’s point of view, they will look at the fence and say the fence is not complete. Does that play a role in regards to the contract?”
“I made the point in court that the documents which were presented by them are not complete. As a matter of fact it’s only a couple of pages. Contract drawings and papers must be a whole lot of documents that include exactly the description of the works to be done. I’m saying that even looking at their documents; you can’t really determine that there remain things to be done because it all depends on what both parties have put in documents are the details of the things that ought to be done. It is not a matter of somebody just picking up a camera and going somewhere and taking pictures; because in fact this was phase one fot he contract which suggests that there would be further phases. It might be that you have—and I don’t know—it might be that you have other works to be performed which might impact on the fence; I don’t really know. The fact is that what the court has to go on would be the material that was presented to the court and that material was seriously deficient; in my view.”
“So in your summation you would say that the election petition would fail?”
“I am not god if you notice to predict how any matter is going to go. I can only tell you that I feel that we have a strong case. I do believe that it is the position that Herman Longsworth did not have any contract with the government as declared with the affidavit as at Election Day and before that at Nomination Day and he does not have a contract with government today. So he is qualified to sit in the house.”
Musa’s argument hinged on Section fifty-eight 1H of the Constitution of Belize which says “No person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives who is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any contract with the government for or on account of the public service and has not, within one month before the day of election, declared publicly and in a newspaper circulating in the electoral division for which he is a candidate a notice setting out the nature of the contract and his interest, or the interest of any such firm or company therein.” Pundits say that section of the constitution will also be used against Mark King and possibly at least one more elected U.D.P. Area Representative before the end of the week.