BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE nation of St. Kitts and Nevis would have to wait until Monday (Jan. 26) or the following day to find out whether or not the injunction granted by the Court preventing the Parliament from making use of the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s Report, which was granted last Friday (Jan. 16), would be discharged or upheld.
All parties in the matter appeared before Her Ladyship Justice Marlene Carter yesterday (Jan. 22) to forward their arguments.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Anthony Astaphan QC argued that the injunction should be dismissed on the basis that when it was given and the persons against whom it was given, neither their counsel were present and that would have had to be the case in order for it to take effect at that time.
Astaphan further argued that the injunction was designed to stop what had already taken place, especially since the proclamation had already been signed and gazetted by 6:30 p.m. (Jan. 16) and the Attorney General was served with documents relative to this case at 8:45p.m.
Her Ladyship Justice Carter indicated that she had granted the injunction in question at 7:38 p.m.
Astaphan told the Court that should injunctive relief be granted, it would have to be on the grounds that the proclamation did not meet the provisions of the Constitutions, adding that there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
However, much of the arguments proffered by Christopher Hamel-Smith SC, counsel for the claimants – Dr. Timothy Harris et al - hinged on whether or not the proclamation was gazetted and published in accordance with the instructions outlined in the Constitution.
He indicated that while the Attorney General said he was told by the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, Erasmus Williams, that the gazette was disseminated, that was not altogether true, because it was only the text of the proclamation that was disseminated.
Hamel-Smith contended that the document which was also published on the government’s website was not the gazette in question and, even if it were, the first page was missing. He said, also in accordance with the law, printed copies of gazettes must include specific information such as the name of the printer and the words “by authority”.
His claim is that copies of the gazette which were sent to specific individuals did not meet that criteria and the dissemination of these could be considered a criminal offence.
Hamel-Smith’s suggestion was also that, according to evidence adduced by the Hon. Sam Condor via affidavit, the gazette was not made available until 2:30p.m. on Monday (Jan. 19).
Therefore, he explained, the conditions, as outlined in the Constitution for the publishing of the gazette, were not met and the injunction should be upheld and the substantive matter heard by the Court.
The claimants also made an application to have the Electoral Commission added to the injunction so that it binds them from making any pronouncement before the Court has made its decision on the matter.
Hamel-Smith told the Court that it has come to their attention that the Electoral Commission was purporting to inform the country that the upcoming General Elections would be held on new boundaries, notwithstanding that an injunction was implemented by the Court.
Before today’s sitting ended, Justice Carter advised Astaphan to speak with the Attorney General and get an undertaking that the Electoral Commission would make no pronouncement about old or new boundaries until the matter is resolved.
After an hour-long break, Her Ladyship indicated that she was reserving her decision on the application to discharge the injunction. However, Court resumes today (Jan. 23) when other related matters will be dealt with.
In the meantime, Justice Carter said the injunction remains in force.
