BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE application filed by the Attorney General, the Hon. Dennis Merchant, to strike out the Contempt of Court Order filed by members of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) was struck out by the High Court of Justice earlier today (July 28).
Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti heard submissions from both the claimants and respondents yesterday, on whether or not the Order should be overturned.
The respondent’s contention was that under Section 45 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis, the court has no jurisdiction to consider matters arising from things done or said during the sitting of the St. Kitts Nevis National Assembly. On the other hand, the claimants contended that even if statements made in Parliament are not considered, prior to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Report being tabled in Parliament, it was made use of, thus breaching a court order [injunction].
Her Ladyship, in giving her decision on the matter, explained that she gave consideration to all submissions made by both sides, the Contempt of Court Act and the evidence in its entirety. She further explained that having done so, she believes the claimants’ case should go forward.
She dismissed the application to strike out the Contempt of Court application and ordered cost to the claimants.
In an exclusive interview with SKNVibes, Constance Mitchum, a member of the PAM’s legal team, explained that this development adds to the “momentum which we feel is building up in our cause”.
Member of the AG’s legal team, Anthony Sylvester explained that his clients are not moved by the developments and believe that if and when the actual Contempt of Court hearing takes place, it would be dismissed.
The other leg of the debate, which ensued following the passing of judgment, was what procedure should to be employed during the contempt of court hearing – whether it be under Section Four of the Contempt of Court Act which speaks to criminal contempt or Section Three which speaks to civil contempt.
The ruling of the court was that the alleged Contempt of Court, in accordance with the law, is a civil matter and proceedings should be conducted under Section Three of the Contempt of Court Act.
