BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE late processing of documentation by the Registry may have been the cause for the delay in the commencement of the hearing of the Constitutional Motion filed by the Hon. Dr. Timothy Harris last week Tuesday (Nov. 10).
The motion is asking the Court to make an order for the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Hon. Curtis Martin, to table the Motion of No Confidence and have it debated; a motion which was filed by Dr. Harris in September 2014.
Dr. Harris’ team – led by Chris Hamel-Smith SC- and the counsel for respondent Martin, led by Sylvester Anthony, appeared this morning (Nov. 20) before the Basseterre High Court of Justice, where the matter was discussed.
Her Ladyship Justice Marlene Carter was told by Anthony et al that they were only served with notice of the motion two days ago (Nov. 18) and as such would need time to review it, take instructions from their client and prepare themselves.
It was further explained that there is a 14-day period within which the defendants are required to respond after being served. However, Hamel-Smith suggested that the Court does have jurisdiction to bend that rule as is necessary.
Hamel-Smith also indicated to the Court that they had only received copies of the documentation on Monday afternoon (Nov. 17) and served notice on the Speaker of the House on the following day.
Her Ladyship said she was surprised that documentation was circulated as late as it was, especially in light of the fact that when it was filed on Tuesday last (Nov. 11) the Court scheduled the matter for hearing and sent the information to the Registry.
Vincent Byron, member of Dr. Harris’ legal team, told the media that he too is surprised at the length of time it took for the documents to be processed at the Registry and to date no explanation has been afforded them.
“We are very surprised at that because the judge herself said that when the papers were field last Tuesday, that she set a date within that same day and sent them back to the Court Registry. And then a week passed before the Registry informed us that the papers were ready for service; so we lost a week there. No one seems to have given us an explanation as to why that happened…that is very strange…
“The facts are that the Court set a date on Tuesday last…gave us time so that we could have served on Tuesday last so there would have had less objection having had that time to see the case. We only got the papers late Monday (Nov. 17) and were able to serve Tuesday. So we lost seven days and no one seems to have given us an explanation at this point in time.”
Her Ladyship Carter decided however that the defendant has until December 12, 2014 to acknowledge service and decide on their course of action, and that on the 19th the parties would return to the Court where a timetable would be set for proceeding with the case.
Byron is of the view that the matter would not be heard until next year.
