BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE decision of Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas to lay before the National Parliament the Report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission has brought him under much scrutiny for going in what one senior lawyer called “a contravention of the provisions of an injunction”.
On Wednesday (Jul. 8), His Lordship Justice Francis Belle made a ruling that an injunction filed against the Attorney General and the Constituency Boundaries Commission, by the People’s Action Movement (PAM), be upheld until the substantive matters of the case can be heard.
The injunction, filed by PAM parliamentarian Hon. Shawn Richards, orders that “the respondents are hereby restrained by themselves, their servants, and/or agents or persons subject to their control, authority or direction or howsoever otherwise from submitting to the Governor-General, or making any use of, any report purportedly pursuant to Section 50 (1) (a) until the hearing of this action of until further order of this Honourable Court”.
However, during yesterday’s (Jul. 9) sitting of the National Parliament, Prime Minister Douglas laid the report of the constituency boundary changes before the House and opened discussions on the proposed changes. He said that he is aware of the injunction, but argued that it does not prevent him from complying with his obligations under the Constitution.
He referenced Section 50, Subsections 3 and 1a, and explained that he has the constitutional obligation to lay the report before the House as Prime Minister.
“I want to make it absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker, that I have sought legal advice and I am advised legally that the injunction, which I understand bars other people or injuncts [sic] other people, does not injunct me from doing what I read here to have been my constitutional responsibility once this document was in my hand,” Douglas said.
He sought to allay public concern by stating that “there is no controversy whatsoever”. He added that if he were so advised that the injunction obstructed the work of Parliament and his Office, we would not have proceeded with yesterday’s Parliamentary sitting.
The section of the Constitution to which Douglas refers does state that “as soon as may be after the Commission has submitted a report, the Prime Minister shall lay before the National Assembly for its approval the draft of the Proclamation of the Governor General, whether with or without modifications to the recommendations contained in the report”.
SKNVibes contacted a learned member of the legal fraternity who was also one of the drafters of the Constitution, and the individual explained that the injunction maintained by the High Court binds the government and prohibits it from having any dealings with the report until the court matter is heard.
“The order would bind everybody: the government and the crown. Although the Queen’s Courts don’t normally make orders against the Queen or her representative, the [representative of the] Queen still has to be conscious of what the Courts have ordered in order to seek to avoid conflict” said the source, who would only comment under condition of anonymity.
The individual added that while it may be true that the injunction was granted after the report was submitted to the Governor General, it does clearly state that it prevents anyone from making any use of the report.
The legal counsel noted that the Prime Minister could be viewed as being “in breach of the injunction order”, adding that someone could move to have contempt in the first case of the Attorney General.
It was further stated that there could be a sanction by the High Court, or a reprimand may be ordered if persons are determined to be in violation of the injunction.
