BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - THE ruling by Justice Darshan Ramdhani in February to not strikeout the Motion of No Confidence case brought by the Parliamentary Opposition was upheld by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court yesterday (Oct. 27).
At the commencement of the local sitting of the Appellate Court, it was argued by the government side that Justice Ramdhani went too far in his ruling where he said, among other things, that the court had the power to intervene in Parliamentary matters when constitutional rights are being infringed.
A part of Justice Ramdhani’s ruling was that there was nothing impeding the tabling of the Motion of No Confidence and that it should be tabled by the Speaker of the National Assembly - the Hon. Curtis Martin - soonest.
The government’s side and the Speaker challenged this through an appeal, and indicated that Justice Ramdhani crossed over into the jurisdiction of the Parliament in a direct violation of the separation of powers principle.
The Justices of Appeal however, upheld Justice Ramdhani’s decision but ordered that the substantive matter is to go to trial.
A timeline was also set in which affidavits and responses are to be filed and case management is to take place on December 1. The actual trial however, would take place at a later date.
Opposition Senator Hon. Vincent Byron told WINNFM that Monday’s decisions by the Appeal Court resulted in a victory for the opposition.
“We are now at the stage that we hoped that we would have been since last year and that is for the court to be able to tell us what are the rights of the Speaker in this matter, that we would actually get a chance to determine, when, if at all we will be able to get this Motion of No Confidence that has been pending for nearly two years.”
Representing the Speaker of the National Assembly is Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan and in an interview with WINNFM indicated that yesterday’s ruling meant that the trial would start a fresh and the findings of Justice Ramdhani would not be binding in the new trial.
"The court is was very clear that this matter should go back to the trial judge for a ruling on the claim brought by the respondents and also on any defense that the Speaker will have in relation to the issue of his discretion in relation to a Motion of No Confidence. The court made no findings of fact or law that are prejudicial to either side…the rulings and finding made by the judge will not be binding on the High Court Judge, so it starts afresh.”
