By G. A. Dwyer Astaphan
.jpg)
I wish to refer to some electoral matters that are of concern to me.
The process that led to the ‘Boundary Changes’ Resolution in Parliament in July took too long.
In any case, to the surprise of no one, as soon as word came out that the Government was going to the National Assembly with the Resolution on the Constituency Boundaries, PAM went to the Court.
(I won’t go into the case which I hear PAM has now brought to challenge the law recently passed in the National Assembly mandating every candidate in an election to make a sworn declaration on Nomination Day that he or she is a citizen only of the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis, except to say that I don’t see what problem PAM could or should have with that).
Meanwhile, wanting to make sure that he spoke on the Resolution before getting hit with a possible injunction, Prime Minister Douglas called for a rush (same day) sitting of the Assembly to begin the debate on the Resolution.
It seems that I was the only member who had not been notified. And the Speaker of the House apologized to me for that.
It was a journalist who had told me about it.
So I went to see for myself.
On that afternoon in July as I listened to the Prime Minister speak, I was not comfortable.
Among other things, he said that he was beginning the debate, that he did not have to speak the following day (which suggested to me that the sitting might have been called primarily to get his presentation out and to pre-empt any injunction that might follow), and that he would look forward to any contributions which members might have that would guide him on the matter of the Constituency Boundaries, especially in reference to the Nevis Constituencies.
You will recall that the Boundaries Technical Committee (BTC) had recommended that no change be made to Nevis 9, while the Constituency Boundaries Commission (CBC) had described the situation there to be an “obvious aberration” which needed to be fixed.
Now, what guidance would the Prime Minister need with regard to Nevis 9?
He said that he had been told that many persons who were registered in Nevis 9 actually live abroad, and seemed inclined to support that non-point and use it as justification to ignore the recommendation of the CBC and to go along with the suggestion of the BTC to leave Nevis as it was, with Nevis 9 carrying over 4,000 voters, Nevis 10 just over 1,000 and Nevis 11 just over 2,000.
Nevertheless, he said that he would be willing to listen to the arguments of the Nevis Members of the National Assembly the next day.
What troubled me most about all of this was that his interpretation of section 50(3) of the Constitution, which, as far as he is concerned, vests in him broad and wide powers to make substantive modifications to the recommendations of the CBC.
I disagree.
If he had such broad and wide powers, then there would be no need for a CBC. He would become, in fact, the CBC. And if he can be the de facto CBC, then there is a conflict and natural justice is denied, because he cannot have an interest (and he clearly does have an interest) in a matter and still be the judge in that matter.
The modifications which he can make can only be incidental and consequential, not substantive. Anything else makes no sense.
Meanwhile, here we are today, three months later. The injunctions which PAM obtained are still in force, while everybody awaits the decision of the substantive matter, and while some appeals have already been launched and are to be heard.
And more appeals may follow.
When will the litigation end? I can’t say.
But we are fast approaching October 25th which will be the 5th anniversary of the 2004 General Elections.
Where are we heading?
Section 47(2) of the Constitution states that “….Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date of the first sitting of the National Assembly after any dissolution…”
The first sitting of the National Assembly after its last dissolution just prior to the general elections of 2004 was in December 2004. So it can last until December 2009, at which time it “shall then stand dissolved”.
However, under section 47(5) of the Constitution, it can be recalled between the date of dissolution and the date of the next election if there is a matter of urgent national importance that needs to be dealt with by the Parliament. This process is activated by the Prime Minister advising the Governor-General.
You will recall this happening in Antigua when Parliament was recalled to acquire the Stanford properties and, in the process, to protect the national interest.
Now, according to the provisions of section 48(1) of the Constitution, the next General Elections will have to take place within ninety (90) days after the dissolution of Parliament.
Even if the court cases are not ended by December of this year, the National Assembly must nevertheless be dissolved in December, and Elections must be held within ninety (90) days. That would be March 2010.
Might the cases continue up to a month or two prior to the due date in March? What kind of atmosphere will there be in the country if that were to happen? Would we want to experience that?
And between December 2009 and March 2010, would it be only the Prime Minister running the Government?
Look. Let’s not waste precious time and blessed energy quarrelling. Instead, let’s look towards solutions. We must do all that we can to avoid any impasse, or worse, any friction in this country over the next five months.
It is time for cool, calm, careful and caring heads to prevail, so that we might steer ourselves and our vulnerable little nation clear of avoidable difficulties.
In an open letter to the Prime Minister dated 27th September 2009, Mr. Loris James has asked for a consultation of stakeholders. I think that is a step in the right direction, and it can happen even though cases are before the Court.
