Close this search box.

Audrey Matura's Respond to Article on The Guardian Newspaper

Dear Editor,

Please allow me some space in your newspaper to set the record straight on some outright lies and deception written against me and to which sadly I must respond so as to stop the continued fabrications and deceptions by the Guardian Newspaper.

Under the heading of an article “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” the un-named author seeks to cast aspirations and in typical political bullying fashion suggests that I would be running in the next general election under a PUP banner and worst yet that my esteemed colleague Phillip Palacio is being asked to step aside to make way for me in the Mesopotamia Division.  This is an outright lie and one phone call to me could have easily verified this but the Guardian Newspaper under this “lot” is nothing about truth.  As the founding editor of said newspaper and a former journalist myself, I am indeed disappointed at the fecal level of their writing and reporting.  

Unlike the coward author and his editor, who hide behind anonymity I would like to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt that if I should ever chose to run for office it would surely not be under a PUP banner and definitely not by stabbing anyone in the back to take over any seat.  The back-stabbing is more what the Guardian newspaper and the owners and advisory board is about by printing outrights lies and seeking to distract from the truth about their outright attempt to deceive the unsuspecting people of this nation.  My style is forthright and to the point and surely not cowardly and deceitful – I am fearless in my conviction to live by my conscience and will continue to do so as long as God gives me life.

I am very cognizant of the fact that the UDP and its mouthpieces, including the Guardian cannot deal with the fact that there are independent-minded patriotic Belizeans whose moral and ethical compasses are not calibrated by political hand-outs and patronage.  God forbids a Belizean woman would dare speak out, for that male-dominated organ (no pun intended) this is tantamount to blasphemy.  It seems the truth about what I have to say is hurting so bad they need to get personal and downright dirty – fecal dirty.  Don’t worry my brothers and sisters on that side – I do not hold any grudges or discontent in my heart – they are forgiven.

I know it hurts them that not everyone can be their puppet and that the eyes of the people of this nation is being opened and this is only possible when people like myself dare speak out and share information and knowledge.  It is unfortunate that my dear friend Alfonso Noble, Editor of the Guardian allows this trash writing to the point of questioning my legal learning.  If he really believes that my legal acumen is that poor I don’t know why until recently he kept seeking my counsel in advising him and the newspaper on the potential libel of their cartoons after being threatened with lawsuits following his publications.  

Despite them claiming to have the entire legal prowess in an act of kindness and friendship I so aptly advised free of cost until recently.  But of course the UDP’s scandal-sheet just don’t get it…in my book: I am not owned by anyone; national interest is above individual or party interest; wrong is wrong; not because I do not agree with all you do,  means I am against you.  I just do not ascribe to party-fanaticism because it gets us nowhere.  

Now on the matter of the decision of the CCJ – I know it is incumbent on the Guardian to try and save face and say such erroneous and mis-leading statements on the issue of the Ninth Amendment, but as long as we remain a democratic nation their deception will be uncovered.

Without going into the details of the ruling it is sufficient to just say to people, read the Bill for yourself, think critically for yourself and make sense out of nonsense.  If the present administration is not seeking to change our system of democratic governance why would it write in the Bill the following words: “a law passed by the National Assembly to alter any of the provisions of this Constitution which is passed in conformity with this section shall not be open to challenge in any court of law on any grounds whatsoever.”

And if their intention was never to seek to stop the courts from reviewing unconstitutional amendments then why write it in section 69(9)?  And if the changes are only about nationalization why didn’t they just refer to ‘any law dealing with nationalization’? Why leave the wording so wide to be all-encompassing?  Plus the Ninth Amendment does not even use the word “nationalization”.  They got not a slap from the CCJ but a “knock-out punch” because unlike what they want to fool people into believing that this amendment makes nationalization untouchable the truth is that a basic principle of our constitutional democratic system is that ‘no parliament can bind future parliament’. Simply put any future duly government can also amend the Constitution on the issue of the so-called nationalization.  

Further, the other deception is that there is need to stop Ashcroft from accessing the courts and so cut out litigation – but the truth is they enjoy all the litigation so as to make profit for their own loyal “law-firms” and attorneys too.

From my end – I speak out, write and present free of cost….simply put my silence cannot be bought and the political bullying will not deter me!

Thanks for publishing my letter.

Audrey Matura-Shepherd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *