A High Court judge has thrown out most of a businessman’s lawsuit accusing police of unlawful detention, assault, and years of extortion, ruling that the bulk of his claims were filed too late and that others were pleaded too vaguely to proceed.
Justice Rajiv Goonetilleke delivered the decision late last month in a claim brought by Omar Avelar against the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General of Belize.
Avelar’s claim, filed February 9, 2026, centred on his arrest on May 5, 2024, when he was detained and charged with failing to provide a specimen, possessing a firearm while under the influence, and possessing a pistol loaded with 18 rounds of ammunition. He alleged he was unlawfully detained and charged; that he suffered physical injuries, including bruising, a burst lip, and being choked and stomped on the chest, during the encounter; and that his wallet and iPhone went missing.
Avelar alleged a broader pattern of police harassment and extortion dating back to 2021. He claimed two named officers extorted BZD $1,200 from him by cheque in June 2021 and that further unspecified sums, BZD $800, $650, and $1,500, were extorted from him and family members on unstated dates by unnamed officers. He sought special damages of BZD $193,250 along with general damages for emotional distress and reduced quality of life.
The Commissioner of Police and Attorney General applied to strike out the claim entirely, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period that applies to actions against public officers and that the extortion allegations were too vague to meet the court’s pleading requirements.
Justice Goonetilleke split the claim into two categories. The first (covering the May 2024 detention, charging, alleged assault, and loss of property) he found was clearly time-barred. Under Section 27 of Belize’s Limitation Act, claims against public officers acting in execution of their duties must be brought within one year, and the judge held that the cause of action crystallised on the date of the incident rather than continuing afterward, rejecting Avelar’s argument that it should be treated as an ongoing wrong.
The second category (the extortion allegations) received mixed treatment. The judge found the claims concerning unnamed officers and undated payments impermissibly vague under Civil Procedure Rule 8.7(1), which requires a claimant to state the facts relied upon, and struck them out on that basis.
However, the allegation naming two specific officers and a specific date and amount survived both challenges. The judge found it sufficiently pleaded and reasoned that extortion, unlike lawful policing action, is not an act done in execution of any statute or public duty and therefore falls outside the limitation protection at all. He cited a Privy Council decision holding that protections for public authorities must be construed restrictively and apply only where the obligation in question is one owed to the public generally, not to conduct that could equally arise between any two private parties.
The defendants were ordered to file their defence to the surviving allegations by July 9, with Avelar permitted to reply by July 24. The matter is set for further case management on July 29. Avelar was ordered to bear the costs of the strike-out hearing, to be agreed upon or assessed.
