The invoice issued to the Council by Benny’s Wholesale Depot for the purchase of Council firearms for Council security purposes lists five firearms among other items. The first firearm under “description” bears the serial number A187764. This is the same serial number that shows up on the gun license issued to Mark King, Security Manager, Belize City Council, who is in fact the councillor with responsibility for the Council’s security and NOT the security manager as noted on the license!!! The Mark King firearm licence bears the serial numbers of the five firearms the Council bought from Benny’s.

The El Guardian is being mischievous in its attempt to mislead its readers and the people of Belize. It should tell the people what any lawyer would tell them, a gun license does not prove ownership. It only regulates use of the firearm by the person licensed to carry it. It also does not authorize the holder of the firearm to be in possession of the firearm. This is a tricky thing for the reader who cannot cut through the chaff on the issue of what is a firearm license. What I am saying is that John Doe can have a license for my firearm without my knowing it. That means he is licensed to carry and use it but that DOES NOT MEAN he has my permission or authority to have possession of it. The Police know this is possible since this is what appeared to have happened with Dean Samuels being in possession of the Council’s firearm! In this case the paper and the party need to explain how we deceived the Mayor by telling her the firearm is the Council’s when actually it is! The invoice from Benny’s confirms it is the Council’s firearm.

Their second proposition in the quote above asserts that we deceived the Mayor by reporting to her that Samuels did not have a licence for the firearm. Barrow and the Mayor may yet get to hear the entire recording wherein the El Guardian readers and those of “The Truth Shall Make You Free” will know that the paper cannot prove this proposition. The proof lies otherwise and in the remainder of the recording. The El Guardian has treaded on thin ice with the above quote. Barrow knows they do not have absolute or concrete proof for the bold assertion in that quote that attacks us and tries to make us out to be dishonest people and liars.

Perhaps I need to remind Barrow, his followers, and the people of Belize of the following:

On 2nd April 2007, at about 9.40am, Councillor Dean Samuels signed the Belize City Council’s firearms ledger for a 9mm pistol bearing serial number A187764. We know now that he had no license to carry the weapon since he did not receive the license until 3rd May 2007. According to the El Guardian, in their press release on this matter, “This is the same firearm issued by the Council to Councillor Samuels.” They also assert elsewhere in their headline story that by virtue of having a valid license for the firearm, Samuels was therefore authorized to be in possession of the firearm. I must remind the UDP people that the Commissioner of Police in granting a firearm license to anyone DOES NOT in the process authorize the licensee to be in possession of the firearm. That is what the UDP and The El Guardian want you to believe. How misleading!

The El Guardian and the UDP need to stop trying to fool the people. Here are the questions they need to answer:

If they are saying the Council issued the firearm to Councillor Samuels, how is it that the Mayor, perhaps most of her Councillors, and the City Administrator who is responsible for the Council’s stores did not know at the time of the gun incident that the Councillor was in possession of a Council firearm?

When did the Council authorize that the Councillor be issued the firearm and under what authority in the law can they do that? The functions of the Council as a local authority are set out in Chapter 85 of the Laws of Belize and its subsidiary legislation. No where in the law does it list one of the Council’s functions as being in the business of “special protection” for its elected members. I would challenge the Council in a court of law that it does not have the legal authority to issue firearms to its elected members for special protection. Council decisions must be related to its statutory functions; that is, those functions it is authorised to deal with according to chapter 85.

If the Council is conceding that the officer who authorized the issuance of the firearm as noted in the ledger, Security Manager Hiram Longsworth, acted with their authority, how could he do that without informing the City Administrator who was his immediate boss, who in turn would have informed the Mayor. The Council knows it did not because they could not legally do so! The issuance of the firearm appeared to have been done unilaterally by one person with the apparent permission of another Councillor. Neither has the authority in the law do what was done. If the UDP wants to argue and pull wool over the people’s eye that they do have the authority, then I challenge them to provide that information to the public.

Then again, if the UDP is saying that the Council authorized the issuance of the firearm to the Councillor for personal protection, authority it does not have in the law, and did not inform the City Administrator who is legally responsible for the Council’s stores, then this act of the Council would go to the heart of the issue the senior managers contended, the Council does not need the senior managers to run the Council and the Council does not know its authority in the law nor its role.

The UDP bungled the resignation of the six senior managers by seriously miscalculating two of their tolerance for BS. They jumped to defend the elected officials rather than listen openly to both sides. They bungled the gun issue and continue blindly down that road of denial—denial that something seriously is amiss among some of its elected councillors. That denial will cost them. How can they govern this nation if they could not deal with these two issues in a fair and proper manner that would have seen justice done to all?