“The interesting thing about the judgment is that it wasn’t decided on the basis of anything argued by either side. The judge agreed that our players became citizens on independence or at birth, as we had argued. They agreed with us but then surprisingly latched on to a section of the constitution, section 27 which wasn’t argued by either side. That section says a Belizean citizen who acquires a second nationality may keep his Belizean nationality if he opts to. He has the option to retain Belizean citizenship. That is the basis of the decision.
Now the judge interpreted that to mean that your players were Belizeans at birth under the constitution yes but then they were born in the US so they became Americans, second citizens, and under section 27, you have the option to retain Belizean citizenship but that means that they have to do something, they have to exercise the option to retain Belizean citizenship and they didn’t do it until they applied for passports and certificates of affirmation and that happened after they reached the age of 16.
We disagree completely. We do not think that section 27 of the Belizean constitution imposes any obligation on any dual citizen of Belize to do anything. So that in summary our view is that the judge wrongly interpreted and applied section 27 of our Belize constitution to impose an artificial obligation on dual citizens to do something to prove that they retained citizenship. That is not so.
Now we see having read the decision that he agreed with our arguments but then makes the lynchpin, the decisive factor of his decision, is section 27 and to put it mildly, I am very unhappy and irritated about them.”
