CCJ Declines to Intervene in Maya Customary Land Rights Legislation

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has declined to intervene in the ongoing development of legislation to protect Maya customary land rights in southern Belize. In reasons released on October 2, the court explained why it dismissed an application seeking clarification of its 2015 Consent Order. The decision was delivered on July 30, and the court issued a media release on the matter today.  The Maya Leaders Alliance (MLA) and other applicants argued that fundamental disagreements over the meaning of the order were hampering implementation. Representing them, Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith told the court that they were seeking guidance on rights already recognized, rather than asking judges to prescribe legislation.

Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith: “Both the respondent and the appellants are agreed that the court possesses the jurisdiction. Where we part company is that my learned friends on the other side say that there has to be a genuine disagreement, something genuinely needs to be worked out and there isn’t according to them. We say no, something genuinely needs to be worked out, and that is the irreconcilable difference of opinion as to particular words in that consent order. Fundamental. We are diametrically opposed as to the meaning of particular terms of the order. That is a genuine disagreement and it requires the clarification of this court because the court through its order envisioned or the parties agreed that they would implement certain things in consultation. If the foundational principles which will ground the consultation are not understood or are not agreed upon then the consultation is useless because you’re consulting on something that you consider to mean x and we consider it to mean y.”

For the Attorney General, Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck argued that the parties should work through their differences within the established review process. He said the government had presented a draft definition and needed specific feedback on what should be changed.

Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck: “But it’s a start. But the point is that we’ve put forth a definition. And if there’s a genuine dispute as to what the definition should be then tell us what’s wrong with the definition that we’ve put forth. Identify what that difference is and it comes right back to what Your Lordship pointed out to my friend earlier which is what are the terms of this dispute? Where is a genuine dispute? And then you say you want clarification but you haven’t even pointed out to us what’s the weakness of the proposed definition and how you propose to fix it. That’s what the process is about. You’re supposed to say, look, I don’t like your definition. It’s not capturing everything it should. This is what it should be and that’s what the review panel is supposed to be doing and putting forth. Instead, we have an abandonment of the process and a rush to make this application to court to seek a clarification in the widest and most undefined terms. How does that help process any?”

Senior Counsel Smith maintained that the application was intended to prevent further delay and unnecessary litigation. He argued that the consent order sets standards for the consultation process and does not give the government unrestricted authority to redefine Maya customary land tenure.

Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith: “I think that is the best that I can do to reiterate, of course, we can await the end. Much time will pass. It will lead to, coming to this court was to attempt to avoid more delay, unnecessary litigation by the legitimate use of a provision where there is a genuine disagreement on the terms of the order. We view them as conditioning the process that is to follow. They condition the collaboration. They set a standard. My friends on the other side appear to take the view that they can redefine or alter the legal nature of this new system of land tenure recognized as constitutionally sound.”’

The CCJ concluded that the clarification sought fell outside the scope of the order’s “liberty to apply” provision. It also said prescribing the content of proposed legislation would offend the separation of powers and add provisions that were not included in the original order. The court encouraged both sides to continue the collaborative process, while noting that the final product could be challenged through other legal avenues.  Following the ruling, Marshalleck committed to reconvening the review panel and working through proposed changes to the draft.

Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck: “Yes, your Honors. Thank you for the quick decision. We’re going to do our part and schedule the review panel meeting as quickly as we can get the group together. And I’m hoping that we can actually get to examining the part of the legislation because it’s an entire part that deals with what Maya Customary Land Tenure is. And if the whole part needs to be excised and replaced with something else then we need to work towards what that something else has to be. And that’s the only way we’re going to get fruit out of this.”

The 2015 Consent Order recognized that Maya customary land tenure exists in the Maya villages of the Toledo District and gives rise to constitutionally protected property rights. The government undertook to develop measures to identify and protect those rights in collaboration with the Maya representatives. The CCJ ended its monitoring role in October 2025. This latest ruling dismisses the application for clarification, but does not overturn the rights recognized in 2015.