Astaphan accuses trial judge of erring
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE Appellate Court of the Eastern Caribbean has begun hearing arguments in the Nevis Elections Petition case, which began with counsel for the petitioners suggesting that the judge in the lower court erred in judgment.
The case commenced yesterday (July 5) at the Nevis Circuit Court before Justices of Appeal Davidson Baptiste, Ian Donaldson Mitchell and Janice Pereira.
The appeal stems from the January 2012 Election Petition case that was brought by Deputy Leader of the Concerned Citizens Movement Mark Brantley. His argument was that because of irregularities and the illegal disenfranchisement of 200-plus voters, the election of July 2011, which he lost to the Nevis Reformation Party’s Hensley Daniel by 14 votes, was invalid.
That case was presided over by His Lordship Justice Lionel Jones who ruled that those particular results of the election were null and void. He also ruled – among other things – that the 200-plus names which were illegally removed would not to be reinstated on the Voters’ List.
Astaphan’s arguments
Anthony Astaphan QC – on behalf of the petitioners - forwarded several arguments to the court to support his view that Justice Jones failed to consider certain portions of evidence and acted wrongly in pronouncing the judgement he did.
Astaphan belaboured the point that although there were irregularities, it was necessary for the trial judge to conduct a trial to ascertain whether or not all the voters whose names were removed from the St. John’s Constituency were qualified to be registered there, even though objection notices were served them.
He submitted that the persons whose names were removed from the list should have been granted a hearing to determine whether or not their names should be restored thereto.
The trial judge – Astaphan forwarded – wrongly assumed that all the voters were duly qualified to vote even though they were objected to.
Astaphan - in another point of his argument - said the learned judge ought to have considered whether or not breaches of the law or irregularities were enough to skew the results of the election.
With reference to the late issuance of objection hearing notices, Astaphan argued that the Registration Officer was obliged only to take the notices to the Post Office for registration. He argued that her obligation did not extend to ensuring that they were dispatched etc. Therefore, he continued, she could not be held responsible for the late delivery of the notices.
In a further submission to the court, Astaphan accused Brantley of not being as vigilant and proactive as he should have been in attempting to right the wrongs which he felt were committed by the Registration Officer.
Dr. Henry Browne - counsel for petitioners Joseph Parry and Hensley Daniel – began forwarding his argument to the court shortly before the day’s session concluded and he is scheduled to continue today when court reconvenes at 9:00 a.m.
Douglas Mendes SC is also expected to address the court on Brantley’s appeal for the court to clarify Justice Jones’ decision that names illegally removed from the list not be restored.
This trial has been allotted two days for hearing, however, the court has been asked to consider sitting on Saturday if the need arises.
