BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE dissolution of Parliament on Friday (Jan. 16) was the overarching subject of arguments made at the High Court yesterday (Jan. 19) as to whether or not the Motion of No Confidence (MONC) case should proceed or be disposed of.
The case was brought by the Hon. Mark Brantley (et al), who was the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, after he filed the MONC in December 2012 and was dissatisfied that after a considerable time had elapsed it had not been tabled and debated.
During the Court sitting yesterday before Her Ladyship Justice Marlene Carter, the former Speaker of the House, the Hon. Curtis Martin, via his lawyer Anthony Astaphan, made application to have the case dismissed or the proceedings stayed.
According to Astaphan’s arguments for dismissal of the proceedings, the relief that the claimants are seeking is no longer “live” especially since the aim of the MONC has already been achieved, albeit not through the its tabling and debate. The result, he said, is the dissolution of Parliament which leads to an imminent election.
He also argued that should the Court proceed with the “academic” matter, Her Ladyship would be descending into the realms of the political arena because whomever the decision favours would use it on their political platform for the purpose of gaining mileage.
Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, another member of the Speaker and the Attorney General’s legal team, supported Astaphan’s arguments.
Brantley et al’s legal team member Douglas Mendes SC agreed with Astaphan and Goldsmith that the MONC could no longer be debated because the House has already been dissolved. He also agreed that the Court could not make declarations – specifically related to that – that the Opposition was asking it to make.
He argued however that the case should continue because there is a specific issue of constitutional and legal importance that needs to be answered, which is – “Did the Speaker violate the right of the Opposition by not tabling the MONC on the basis that it was sub judice?”
Recalling some of the happenings in the case, Mendes said affidavits filed by the Speaker/Attorney General and their team when they argued to set aside a motion of discontinuance filed by Brantley et al, they repeatedly indicated that the case was of significance and that there were legal issued that needed to be pronounced on and resolved by the Court.
He said their stance has completely changed and are now saying that it is of no legal significance.
Her Ladyship Justice Carter said she would make a pronouncement on the matter this afternoon (Jan. 20).
