Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  OPINION
Posted: Monday 2 June, 2014 at 4:34 PM

After The Judgment

By: T. C. Phipps-Benjamin, Commentary

    A February 12, 2014 seventy-page ruling by Resident Judge Darshan Ramhdani ordering the Speaker of the House of Parliament in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis to table a December 12, 2012 Motion of No Confidence has been haplessly snubbed by the same Speaker, Mr. Curtis Martin, once thought to be a rising champion for the cause of the youth, transparency and good governance.

     

    After the judgment, Speaker Martin has chosen to exist as if there was never a court ruling and in the process, he has successfully turned regional and worldwide microscopic lens on the state of affairs as well as the Constitution of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. 

    By choosing not to table the MONC which a Supreme Court Judge has ordered him so to do citing no impediment to him doing so, the Speaker of the house is essentially in violation of the Constitution he is charged with to uphold.

    Suffice it to say, the seasoned  Speaker is regarded by many as a mere actor in the cast of characters currently peddling a culture of divisiveness that has successfully impaired the government’s ability to mend fences and ultimately unite a broken nation. 

    While the last seventeen months for the opposition has been about the fight for democracy and pursuing painstaking, time consuming measures to draw regional and international attention to the erosion of a free people's most sacrosanct right, the current administration has spent the last seventeen months placing "pricey band aids" on many of the sores of the economy, a last ditch desperate effort to make the final act in the flawed scene appear impressive.

    Church leaders, business leaders, CARICOM leaders, and leaders of various non-governmental organizations have not favored the disregard with which democracy has been treated on Church Street in one of the most historical island nation cities of the world. 

    Letters have been penned, words have been exchanged, pleas have gone out, demonstrations have been held and a Supreme Court Judge has ruled in favor of tabling the MONC. Despite every effort from across various segments of society and the region, the rule of law seemingly depends on who rules the land and the Constitution seems not to matter after all.

    Following the February 12, 2014 judgment, all sides claimed victory.  The incumbents insist the removal of nine of the defendants from the action and the judge's order that the claimants pay costs is a cause for jubilation on the government's side. Despite the hullabaloo and the claim of victory, the government has since appealed the February 12 Court ruling.

    The expectation of the claimants in this matter is that the Speaker would  place the MONC on the order paper.  However, at this point, the claimants can no longer hope for the motion to be tabled in "reasonable time" as "reasonable time" has long past.

    In his ruling, Judge Ramhdani unequivocally holds the Speaker accountable for including the MONC on the order paper for subsequent hearing in parliament.  Will recent developments lead us to become some rogue state where even after court rulings are handed down, liable parties brazenly ignore and defy these judgments? How is it acceptable for our leaders to decide which law to abide by when the electorate who elects them to make and amend laws must abide by the very laws they (parliamentarians) abhor?

    Cloaked by the partnership of our federal state leader, the Governor General and the Speaker of the house, the Political Rock Star Prime Minister himself, ministers and senators in parliament appear to feel justified in their current stance. 

    During the now seventeen months since the speaker's continued evasion of the MONC, there has been much dialogue pertaining to constitutional reform. Irrespective of one's political persuasion, reform is deemed to be a necessary tool to ensure the laws of the land reflect societal changes over time and it is unfair to denounce or ridicule the opinions of those who have made numerous suggestions as to the type of constitutional reform they deem necessary to avoid stalemates such as the current one the nation faces.

    Some arguments include:

    No parliamentarian should be allowed to cross the floor and join with the opposition to thereby weaken the government's hand without first resigning his/her parliamentary seat and going back to the people for a fresh mandate through a bye-election.

    Others have argued that their rights as voters have been disenfranchised as they had no opportunity to vote for or against former Labour government ministers Sam Condor and Dr. Timothy Harris.

    Still, some insist that the all too powerful Prime Minister should first receive a mandate from the constituents of a particular constituency before firing an elected parliamentarian.

    Concerns about the Constitution are nothing new and are actually welcome as the various perspectives are reflective of the concerns of the electorate who matter most. However, until many of the current recommendations become law, they are but recommendations. Going against the laws enshrined in the Constitution is in essence evading the law and disregarding the Constitution. Until and unless there are amendments to the Constitution, non-compliance with the laws of the Constitution is an affront to democracy.
      
    On Pages 51 and 52 at Paragraph 116 of the Judge's February 12, 2014 ruling, the learned Judge makes a distinct conclusion as to the purpose of the MONC:

    “A motion of this kind is perhaps the most important mechanism that can be employed by Parliament to hold the executive to account and to interrogate executive performance.

    In the view of this court, SKN constitution has also itself expressed an urgency in what should follow, after the majority of elected representatives have decided to declare their lack of confidence in the Government, that is within three days, the PM should either resign (thereby vacating the offices of all his Ministers) or effectively cause parliament to be dissolved.

    It would make nonsense of this provision that there could effectively be that required lack of confidence and a request to have such a motion debated and voted on but that a Speaker could refuse or fail to place such on the Order Paper for debate. To my mind, not only does the text and structure of the Constitution recognize an implied substantive right in each and every representative of the Assembly a right to conceive and request that a motion of no confidence be placed for debate by the Assembly, but also as being logically and practically necessary for the integrity of this structure, an implied procedural right, once that motion has been submitted by the Assembly in the prescribed  manner, the motion must be accorded priority over other business by being scheduled, debated and voted on within a reasonable time given the programme of the Assembly.”

    Politically, there are NO winners in a crisis where both the incumbents and opposition see the same thing and call it something totally different. Still, after the judgment, the weight of the nation rests heavily on a young man, in whose ability our government expressed confidence to uphold the Constitution and carry out his duty in as impartial a manner as possible.

    Given the current state of affairs in the federation, it begs the question, how will reform happen when before the Speaker of the house is a judge's order to enter Parliament and table a December 11, 2012 motion of no confidence? Who will spearhead reform that speaks to wholesome changes that are not about partisanship? Will parliamentarians be prepared to engage in substantive reform that seeks to make our Constitution stronger rather than dwell on the flaws some deem to be currently inherent in the very Constitution that is suppose to guide us? 

    After the Judgment, the seat on Church Street in which the Honourable Speaker sits befits one who is a true advocate of upholding the law rather than one who touts political allegiance at whatever cost!


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    *************************
      DISCLAIMER
     
    This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not  correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers              
Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service