BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – LEGAL counsel representing the government in the ongoing constitutional matters have applied to withdraw two of their appeals, but lawyers for the People’s Action Movement (PAM) insist that they be paid costs for the expenses incurred in preparation for these appeals.
In late July, the government had appealed an order handed down by His Lordship Justice Francis Belle that granted PAM an injunction barring the use of a report from the Constituency Boundaries Commission.
The injunction was reinforced by Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti on August 4, and another appeal was filed against it by the government on August 11.
However, following His Lordship Justice Errol Thomas’ ruling in the substantive matters on October 19, government lawyers said the appeals became “of no moment”.
In his arguments to the Court of Appeal yesterday (Nov. 3), lead counsel representing the government Anthony Astaphan SC explained that the appeals were made in the context of “great urgency”, as the injunction had the effect of delaying the work of Parliament in preparation for the upcoming General Elections.
Astaphan argued that the totality of conduct of his party in pursuing the appeals must be considered “fully justified”.
“There is no ground or allegation to suggest that the appeals were without merit, baseless, mischievous or done with some ulterior motive other than bringing sanity to the rule of law. We felt it imperative that the matter be dealt with.
“These appeals,” Astaphan added, “have become redundant to no fault of our own...and despite the serious issues raised on the merit of the appeals, a party ought not to be penalized with cost.”
Astaphan quipped that an order of the judge that goes “beyond the dollar...would be unduly harsh”.
Counsel representing PAM in the case, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, maintained that while her party does not object to the withdrawal of the appeals, the government must be ordered to pay costs and cannot be allowed to go “scot-free”.
“It was an abuse of process that whilst the judge was dealing with the substantive matters, they were appealing matters from the High Court. I submit that the Court of Appeal judgements have come and have often frowned upon all these small interlocutory appeals against each order made in the substantive hearing without waiting for the outcome,” she asserted.
Persad-Bissessar argued that the parallel proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are viewed as inappropriate conduct, therefore entitling her party to costs.
The call for costs by PAM was criticized by another lawyer representing the government, Sylvester Anthony, who strongly stated that to ask for cost in these matters would not be just. He argued that the injunction, which is the subject of the appeal, had expired when the ruling was given.
“We would have liked to argue the appeals because we believe they raise significant constitutional points, especially in relation to whether or not the Court ought to have granted an injunction in relation to the exercise of Parliamentary authority but the point was we can’t argue an appeal on a matter that no longer exists.
“We believe that the argument for costs is really meant to score cheap political points. That’s all this was about really, so that the claimants can claim another victory. It was not really an argument in respect of law,” Anthony asserted.
