Friday, September 5th,2014 - Last year, Ms. Cherita Clarke, a resident of Constituency Number 4, commenced legal proceedings against Mr. Wingrove ‘Parrot’ George who, at the time, was the Registration Officer for that Constituency.
He has since been appointed Supervisor of Elections.
The legal proceedings were appeals against Mr. George’s decisions in voter registration objection matters in that Constituency.
The persons whose registrations had been objected to were: Shanika Caines, Naomi Williams, Merenpatah Asante, James Bradshaw, Matilda Bradshaw, Lea Douglas, Jamilla Williams and Raul Clarke.
The matters were heard by Mr. Justice Darshan Ramdhani who delivered his judgment just days ago.
In it, he summarized the law this way:
(i)A person who, being qualified to register as a voter on the basis of being ordinarily resident in a particular constituency, no longer resides in that constituency, can remain registered in that constituency provided he has not qualified to be registered in another constituency;
(ii) If, however, he qualifies to be registered in that other constituency, then his name cannot remain on the Voters’ List of the constituency where he was previously ordinarily resident;
(iii) If the evidence shows that he is registered in a constituency in which he was never ordinarily resident, then that forms the basis of a case to be made against him to have his name removed from the Voters’ List for that constituency;
(iv) A citizen who is ordinarily resident overseas can register to vote, or remain registered, in the constituency in which he was ordinarily resident before leaving the Federation;
(v) A citizen ordinarily resident overseas who was never ordinarily resident in the Federation is allowed to register to vote in the constituency where his mother was last ordinarily resident and if his mother was never resident in the Federation, where his father was last ordinarily resident.
(vi) If a person registered in a particular constituency has received proper notice of an objection to his registration to be heard by a Registration Officer, and, whether or not he shows up for such hearing, and if the evidence delivered at such hearing confirms that he is not ordinarily resident in that constituency, then his name is to be removed by the Registrar from the Voters’ List of that constituency.
And based on the judge’s assessment of the evidence and interpretation of the law, he ordered that:
i. the objections relating to Shanika Caines, Naomi Williams and Jamilla Williams be sent back to the Registration Officer to determine these persons had been properly notified of the hearings;
ii. If proper notice had not been sent then it should now be sent to them;
iii. If proper notice had been sent, then their names are to be removed from the Voters’ List for Constituency Number 4;
iv. If there is no evidence before the Registration Officer rebutting the evidence presented by Cherita Clarke, then the Registration Officer must conclude that Ms. Clarke had satisfied the requirements for a successful objection, and the names must accordingly be removed from the Voters’ List;
v. the objections against Lea Douglas, James Bradshaw, Matilda Bradshaw and Raul Clarke are to be reheard by the Registration Officer; and
vi. The objection against Merenpatah Assante, a resident of England, was dismissed because Ms. Clarke had not put forward sufficient evidence to make her case.
In his judgement, Mr. Ramdhani also gave guidance as to what constitutes sufficient evidence in matters of this nature.
He was not easy on Mr. George.
He said, for example, that when an objector states under oath that he knows the registrant personally and knows that the registrant has moved to another constituency, the Registration Officer should at least make checks in that other constituency to determine whether the person (who is being objected to) is now registered to vote in that constituency. He further said that it would be an artificial exercise if the Registration Officer, having heard evidence that the person being objected to no longer lives in an area, were to simply ignore it because he is personally seized of information which tells him that the objector’s information is wrong. At the very least, the Registration Officer should disclose this information in his reasons so that the Court may assess it.
He went further to say that when the claims and objections process works effectively, “it minimizes the opportunities for a ‘padding’ of the lists with the names of persons who are not eligible and not qualified to vote in that constituency”, and that the “process seeks to protect the integrity” of the Voters’ List.
In the Shanika Caines matter, the judge said:
“I can hardly understand the reasons given by the Registration Officer” with regard to his rejection of certain affidavit evidence put forward by Cherita Clarke, which evidence, according to the learned Judge, was sufficient to order the removal of a person’s name from the Voters’ List.
In the Naomi Williams matter, the Judge said:
“ I cannot understand the Registration Officer’s statement that the objector (Cherita Clarke) had not brought any evidence to prove that Naomi Williams’ name should not be where it is registered”.
With regard to Lea Douglas, the Judge said that after a rehearing, the Registration Officer again disallows the objection, he will have to state his reasons for objecting, and inform the Court the following:
i. when the registrant was first registered;
ii. that proper notice was given to the registrant; and
iii. that investigations were done as regards the registrant being qualified to be registered in another constituency.
Regarding Jamilla Williams, the Judge found it difficult to understand how, on the evidence , the Registration Officer could’ve dismissed Cherita Clarke’s objection.
Indeed, the Judge went on to say very sternly that “the integrity of the process would be better preserved if the Registration Officer would avoid such tongue in cheek comments and really consider the evidence before him.
Again, we see the matter of the integrity of the process being raised by the Judge. And being raised quite emphatically.
What does all of this mean? How can it impact voter registration and the process of claims and objections?
For starters, the decision is the law, and unless reversed or amended, it will remain the law. Accordingly, the Judge’s interpretation of the matter of eligibility and qualification to vote is the operative one, and all to be guided accordingly.
Likewise for his decision with regard to the process of hearing objections and reporting by Registration Officers.
What the judgement seems to be doing is to remove the looseness and the hitherto ‘free hand’ of registration officers, in order to protect the process from abuse, and to preserve its integrity.
It also opens up for review all objections that may have been properly submitted to Registration Officers in the different constituencies of St. Kitts & Nevis.
And it provides for serious and anxious pause by the incumbents, and it provides hope to all right-minded citizens and residents for a cleaning of the Voters’ Lists in the cause of free and fair elections.
*************************
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
