Senate Debate Intensifies Over Judges Salaries and Pension Reform

The Senate resumed its sitting today in Belmopan with much of the morning dominated by an intense debate on the proposed salaries and benefits for members of the judiciary.  At the center of the discussion is the Judges Salaries and Pensions Bill, 2025, first introduced on November 11, 2025, and now moving through its second reading stage. The legislation seeks to formally establish the salaries, pensions, and overall conditions of service for judges of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, replacing the existing contractual arrangements.  Leading the debate for Government was Eamon Courtenay, who emphasized the importance of modernizing how judges are compensated. Courtenay pointed out that, unlike other public officers, members of the judiciary currently do not benefit from a structured pension system. He explained that the bill aims to correct that gap while also legislating salary arrangements to ensure transparency and consistency.  He further noted that the bill has undergone several amendments since its initial introduction, reflecting ongoing consultations and refinements to strengthen its provisions.

Eamon Courtenay, Government Senator: “What exists at the moment, Madam President and colleagues, is contractual engagement of judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. That has flexibility but it also is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitutional mandate that judges must be given security of tenure. Judges serve on contracts for three years, two years, of varying lengths after which they get a gratuity and contracts may or may not be renewed. The difficulty with that arrangement, among others, is firstly is that judges are then called upon to enter into negotiations with the executive, each individual judge, to negotiate his or her salary package and emoluments which creates differences in packages between judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal, judges who get vehicles after two years, judges who get used vehicles, judges who get new vehicles, judges who get vehicles of a certain value, judges who get gas, who get a driver, who get security, etc. The intention of part two of the bill is to remove the need for contracts and to replace it with a legislative scheme that will be published, that will be known, and that will apply to all judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Secondly, part three deals with pensions. And again, the purpose here is to fill the gap that judges are not entitled to a pension at current because they are only engaged on contracts. And so clause four of the bill seeks to provide for the entitlement to a pension for judges who are in full time employment with the Government of Belize as a judge of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal. And so far as itinerant judges, those are judges who are appointed on a contract basis purely for sitting in the court of appeal for short periods, those judges will, as you can see in 4-2 will not become entitled to a pension. The pension scheme being introduced by the bill is a contributory pension scheme. Judges will have to contribute to the pension that they will become entitled to after the qualifying period of service. It is a difference from the current public service pension scheme, which of course is non-contributory. This will require judges to contribute.”

However, the proposal faced strong resistance from members on the Opposition benches. Senator and attorney Glenfield Dennison firmly rejected any move to increase judicial salaries at this time. Dennison argued that the proposed figures are disproportionate, especially when compared to the compensation received by elected officials such as senators.  He lamented that his own stipend as a senator falls far short of what is being proposed under the bill, raising concerns about equity and priorities within the public sector.

Patrick Faber, UDP Senator: “There has been historical context to what I’ve said as well. That judges have been known to be in the pockets of the politicians. And they feel that all is covered and all is well but later on somebody calls into question the judgment that they made. Somebody calls them to task, Madam President, then they have to be disciplined. And then you know what they’ll do ? They’ll go right there knocking to the person who can exercise power over that discretion. Without casting aspersions and say man at least give them the half a pension. What this is basically talking about Madam President is that if a judge is removed from office, now section clause 6.2 talks about a judge that is removed for infirmity and all the other things and we understand that, the judge can be deemed unfit because of medical reasons or whatever and given a pension. But in section 4 it talks about somebody who is given a half pension that is put off for other reasons. And I don’t know what those other reasons could be but whatever those other reasons could be can’t seem to be anything that is good. And it leaves the door wide open for corruption. And again the bill speaks to this being left to the discretion of the Governor General and I don’t want to call into question the Office of the Governor General but it’s whenever you have that kind of discretion you will have a discretion that in fact determines when someone is fired basically. Something has got to be wrong with that. When the government for instance have landmark cases, cases that could determine major financial implications for the government that’s a very real scenario given the historical context of the judiciary’s relationship with politicians in this country and it is only natural, corruption is human nature they say but it can’t slide here Madam President. So we need clear explanation as to why would you even consider this. Why would you consider this ? What is the circumstance that you would give a half pension to somebody who has been fired ?”

According to the official Orders of the Day, the bill was among several pieces of legislation brought forward for consideration during today’s sitting.