BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – HEATED arguments filled the Basseterre Court House as the Federation’s Attorney-General Hon. Dr. Dennis Merchant lodged his confidence in the Court of Appeal to clear his record of the contempt charge brought against him.
The panel of judges in yesterday’s (Nov. 3) Court of Appeal sitting included His Lordship Justice Michael Gordon, Her Ladyship Madame Ola Mae Edwards and His Lordship Justice Davidson Baptiste.
The panel listened to arguments put forward by lead counsel representing the AG, Anthony Astaphan SC, who sought to overturn the August 7 contempt ruling handed down by Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti.
One of the major arguments posed by Astaphan was that an injunction barring the use of Constituency Boundaries Commission report was “astonishingly vague” and did not clearly state what was permitted and prohibited.
“I thought it was clear constitutional law that the PM is not a servant or agent of or subject to the control of the Attorney-General. By no stretch of the imagination could this order be so construed,” he stressed.
Astaphan further argued that the injunction should have been specifically directed at a minister or department, especially as it relates to matters of injunctive relief. This view was compounded by statements made by another lawyer representing the AG, Sylvester Anthony.
“You cannot get an injunction against the Court in judicial review and in constitutional proceedings. If you want to get an injunction, you must name the specific minister or department or authority responsible and not the AG,” Anthony stated in an interview with SKNVibes.
Anthony said that PAM lawyers sought to change their arguments and did not argue on the grounds that were initially pleaded.
“There was no evidence in the proceedings to support the allegations that the AG breached the injunction. That is why in mid-stream they changed their argument from what was pleaded to what they wished to have pleaded,” Anthony indicated, adding that the case should have been thrown out.
Leslie Haynes QC led the case for PAM in the matter and explained that the actions and/or inactions of the AG caused him to be in breach of the injunction.
In explaining the arguments, Constance Mitchum noted that since the AG was present in Court when the injunction was made, he has no excuse to not stop the process of passing the proclamation.
She stressed that the AG has a responsibility to appropriately advise the Prime Minister of the injunction because the responsibility to advise falls under his purview.
“The Attorney-General Act puts a duty on the AG to advise the government on legislative matters. So, he is caught for not advising the government. The problem with the AG is that in the face of all the evidence against him, he has not filed any affidavit in reply. Once our side presented the Attorney-General Act to the Court, they could now pin the drafting of the Proclamation on him,” Mitcham noted.
The panel of justices listened to over five hours of arguments on this matter and a ruling is to be made shortly.
