Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  NEWS
Posted: Monday 7 December, 2015 at 11:53 PM

AG Byron allays concerns about Increase in Senators Act

Attorney General, Honourable Vincent Byron Jr
By: SKNIS, Press Release

    Basseterre, St. Kitts, December 07, 2015 (SKNIS)—Government Senator and Attorney General, Honourable Vincent Byron Jr., sought to allay the concerns of an overseas voter about the Increase in Senator’s Act passed in Parliament in 2013, stating that that law was struck down by the court and does not have any bearing on the current Parliament. 

     

    During the radio programme “Working For You” last Wednesday, Minister Byron was asked by an overseas caller about the state of that Act, and whether it would have any bearing on today’s Parliament. At that time, Parliament passed the law by a thin margin of 8 to 7 in January 2013 which would increase the number of nominated senators significantly higher than what was stated in the Constitution. However, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court struck down the Act as being unconstitutional. 

    “The Parliament is constituted of elected members and nominated members and both elected and nominated members have the same right in Parliament under the constitution, except for one important reason—if there is a motion of no confidence, nominated members cannot vote on it,” Minister Byron said, noting that St. Kitts and Nevis and Dominica are the only countries in the Caribbean that have a unicameral system—meaning only a single chamber in the House. Other Caribbean countries have a House of the Senate for nominated senators and House of Representatives for elected members. 

    In February 2013, the Act was struck down by the Court as unconstitutional. Justice John Benjamin Q.C., ruled that the appointment of Jason Hamilton as the attorney general and as a fourth senator in the National Assembly was null and void and of no effect, and his subsequent participation in the vote on the Bill was deemed unlawful.  The Court agreed that the Bill would not have passed 8-7 had Mr. Hamilton not voted in favour of it.
     
     
     
     
     

    *************************
      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               

     

     

     

Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service