BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - BOTH the claimants and defendants in the recent Motion of No Confidence-related case have claimed victory over the judgment which was handed down earlier today (Feb. 12) by His Lordship Justice Darshan Ramdhani.
Less than two months ago, the Opposition in Parliament (claimants) and Speaker of the House along with Cabinet Members (defendants) appeared before the Court to argue the case of the former’s application to set aside the Opposition’s application to discontinue the case.
And today, one day after the 14-month anniversary of the filing of the Motion of No Confidence, Justice Ramdhani read his judgment in open Court, and while some may view it as a clear victory for one side or the other both sides have declared that the victory is theirs.
Vincent Byron - one of the legal representatives for the claimants - said he viewed it as a triumph for the defendants.
“He [Judge] has said in a nutshell that the Speaker does not have the right to determine whether it is a proper Motion of No Confidence or not. On the face of it, he (the Speaker) should put it on the order paper.
“Secondly, he has said that the rights...(of) elected members of the parliament...should be protected by the Constitution and we are very happy that he has said that. Because it then means...the court then under Section 96 has power to - in the rarest of occasions when this happens - ...bring a remedy and he has made the point (that) we would then have the right to continue in this case for him to determine what would have been the enforcement to make sure that the Motion of No Confidence is placed on the order paper and within a reasonable time.”
His Lordship also held that the names of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the other Members of Cabinet be removed from the case as there is no proof that these have in anyway inhibited the tabling of the MoNC. The Speaker’s name, he said, remains.
“We do not object to that but we are very happy that the judge has said that the Members of the elected majority in Parliament have the right to have the Motion of No Confidence heard and we assume - from the judgment - that as we move forward he will determine what will be a reasonable time and how it should be enforced,” Byron said.
Sylvester Anthony - who provides representation for the defendants - expressed: “The court ruling was that, one, the second through tenth defendants are not proper parties and therefore they are removed and that the claimants must pay costs to them. And the other ruling was that their notice of discontinuance is set aside. So the matter proceeds further. The judge gave a caution however, quoting the Chief Justice in Guyana in another matter that perhaps the parties will not come back before him. That’s all the decision was.
The judge have given certain observations...The matter before the court was twofold, one were the second through tenth defendants proper parties? The court said ‘no’ they are removed, they must pay costs...The court has not yet considered whether it has jurisdiction ...”
Anthony declared that it is a victory for the defendants because nine of the their names were removed from the case and the application to strike out the Motion of No Confidence “is still alive”.
A subsequent publication would be made via this media house when His Lordship’s judgment becomes available to this media house.
