High Court Expedited UDP Leadership Dispute: Shyne Barrow Seeks Contempt Ruling Against Tracy Panton

The legal battle between the United Democratic Party (UDP) Leader Shyne Barrow and Tracy Panton took a new turn today as both sides appeared before the Belize High Court. This morning, Justice Tawanda Hondora ruled to have the leadership dispute expedited as Barrow moves to have Panton found in contempt of court. Panton, who filed an urgent application last month, had requested that the court expedite the case’s hearing given the approaching general election, which could be called at any time next year. Despite last month’s court ruling, Panton also continued to claim that she is the duly elected leader of the UDP and holds legal rights to manage the party’s headquarters. Additionally, Panton sought to add expelled UDP members Patrick Faber, John Saldivar, and Beverly Williams to the case. Today, the situation escalated as Attorney Christopher Malcolm, representing Moses Shyne Barrow, filed a formal application seeking that Tracy Panton be found in contempt of court. Malcolm argued that Panton’s continued use of the UDP letterhead and her declaration of herself as the UDP’s Interim Party Leader, despite the November 8 court ruling, constitutes a violation of the court’s order. The application requested that Panton be either jailed for three months or fined for contempt. The court had ruled that the status quo ante was restored and gave Barrow back control of the party’s headquarters and its organs. Today, one of Panton’s attorneys, Sheen Pitts, spoke on the legal proceedings and explained that both parties will now work to assist the court in finding a way to expedite the matter.

Sheena Pits, Attorney: “A further application was filed by the attorney for Honorable Panton for an interim injunction and that interim injunction sought several relief which includes one of which would be to stop the Honorable Barrow from firing anybody at the UDP secretariat and to stop the appointment of standard bearers. This morning what his attorney filed was an application, well I take it that yesterday it was filed but it wasn’t served until this morning filed an application for contempt. Now that application not having been served or heard. It was only discussed and the application for interim relief not having been served also wasn’t heard, only discussed. What came out of the hearing however, was the court’s appreciation that these various applications are only perhaps collateral and may very well be distractions to the real issue at hand and the court invited the parties to identify what the real issues are, which both parties did. And the court also invited both parties, as I’ve said before in the last update on these proceedings that the court invited both parties to discuss the way forward in identifying issues, providing undertakings, where they are in agreement in terms of deadlines do so and where they are not in agreement in terms of issues or deadlines they do so and they are to report back to the court.”

Pitts responded to whether there was some miscommunication between Barrow’s new attorney and Panton’s legal representatives. She also touched on whether she believes her client may have violated the court’s ruling. 

Sheena Pits, Attorney:  “The court in inviting the parties to have a discussion remember from the last interview I did indicate that the court said the parties should be minded to work together in order to assist what the issues are. The court has also said that in the discussions that are to take place where there may be undertakings to give that those are given. And if there are none then it is indicated to the court that none is being given and then the court will make a determination or perhaps consider the applications as have been filed. I cannot speak on the application for contempt because it was, as I understand it, just served this morning. But what I appreciate is that Knox KC made some observations about perhaps what my words may very well be prematurity in those applications. But like I said, the thing is when a matter is subjudice you are…..you must be guided and cautious that this is before the court and not attempt to speak on anything other than what orders were made or, you know, just remain sober and report factually the things that transpired.”

We’ll keep following the situation and have developments as the court decides when the parties will return.