Injunction against Gov’t maintained; final ruling tomorrow

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – AFTER considering arguments from the St. Kitts-Nevis Government and the People’s Action Movement (PAM) regarding whether or not an injunction against the Boundaries Commission would be lifted, His Lordship Justice Francis Belle has decided to reserve his decision until Wednesday, July 8 – the original date set for the injunction hearing.

The initial challenge was filed by the PAM last Wednesday (July 1) when the party decided that boundary changes “so close to the upcoming General Elections” would only be a “recipe for confusion”. On the following day (July 2), the injunction was granted but was subsequently challenged by the Attorney General on Friday (July 3) for it to be lifted. The presiding judge allowed the Attorney General and Boundaries Commission to present their arguments as to why the injunction should be overturned. 

Representing the Office of the Attorney General and the Boundaries Commission were Legal Counsel Anthony Astaphan SC, Dr. Henry Browne and Arundranauth Gosai, with sitting members of the Commission, Hon. Cedric Liburd and Hon. Dr. Earl Asim Martin, also present at the hearing. The PAM was represented by Attorney-at-Law Constance Mitcham, Marguerite Foreman, Vincent Byron and Shawn Richards, the lone Parliamentary Representative for the PAM.

Following yesterday’s hearing, Astaphan told media representatives that  he was “extraordinarily grateful” that Justice Belle gave the government the opportunity for its case to be heard. He said he remains hopeful that the injunction would be lifted in the interest of the government now that the judge was able to hear arguments from both sides.

“We wanted, out of respect of the court, to get the opportunity to be heard so that we can clarify the issue, get the injunction set aside or even modified to allow the business of the Parliament to proceed. We are ever so hopeful that he [Justice Belle] would set it [the injunction] aside because we believe there was no basis for the application of an injunction,” Astaphan said.

According to Astaphan, the only pleaded ground on which the PAM based its case was the makeup of the Boundaries Commission with supporting arguments that there was no representative of the opposition party appointed on this Commission.
   
“They were essentially complaining that there were no members of PAM on the Boundaries Commission. We are saying that the only member of PAM in the house has no right to be appointed to be a part of the Boundaries Commission...We do not believe that that was a sufficient basis for the report of the Boundaries Commission be set aside or even be stopped,” Astaphan added.

However, Mitcham quickly dismissed the claims of Astaphan calling his explanation “just a red herring”. She stressed that the Government’s representatives “misrepresented our [PAM’s] claim”.

“...nowhere on our documents we alleged that Mr. [Shawn] Richards should have been a member of the [Boundaries] Commission. I personally do not know where they got that from, but perhaps because Mr. Astaphan was brought in hurriedly and he may have misunderstood what the case is all about. It was clear to me that he was not properly briefed and had a complete misunderstanding of what this case is about,” Mitcham stated.

Mitcham noted that yesterday’s hearing had brought the parties “right back to where we started”, as she reiterated the grounds of her client’s challenges to the Attorney General and the Boundaries Commission. She outlined that the two arguments are based on a breach of a mandatory provision of the Constitution and a breach of the rules of natural justice. 

“We are alleging that a section of the Constitution which requires reports of the Boundaries Commission to be made at certain intervals...has been breached. Secondly, we are saying that there is a breach of the rules of natural justice and that is where our second limb comes in when we talk about the fact that there has been no public education on the report,” Mitcham noted.

According to Astaphan, once the Judge sets aside the injunction, then the Governor-General may make his proclamation indicating that the proposed boundary changes go to Parliament for debate. Both parties await a final decision to be made tomorrow to bring some resolution to the matter.