BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – The Basseterre High Court of Justice continued Contempt of Court proceedings today (Jul. 29) with a ruling that barred evidence against Hon. Cedric Liburd from being admitted in the case, but left evidence against the Attorney General as admissible.
Debate raged yesterday in Court when counsels for the People’s Action Movement (PAM) argued that Constituency Boundaries Commission (CBC) member Hon. Cedric Liburd and Attorney General Hon. Dr. Dennis Merchant should be held in contempt of Court for “aiding and abetting in the use of a report”, which a July injunction filed by PAM Parliamentary representative Hon. Shawn K. Richards had prohibited.
The legal team representing the AG and CBC maintained, however, that Liburd’s participation and the AG’s presence could not be used as evidence in the High Court due to protection they are provided by the National Assembly Powers and Privileges Act.
Presiding Judge Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti explained that according to “trite law”, or a law that everyone should commonly know, the AG was not sued in person, but rather as the representative of the government. In contrast, she added that the Commission can only act by virtue of its members, as it is not an individual.
After assessing both sides, Justice Joseph-Olivetti referred to Section 45 of the Constitution and confirmed that it precludes statements personally made by Members of Parliament while Parliament is in session. She added that Liburd’s participation in the Parliamentary debate being used to support arguments that he made use of the report “falls squarely within what is precluded in Section 45”. Because of this, evidence brought against Liburd was not admitted and all references made to him in the affidavits by PAM had to be struck out.
Justice Joseph-Olivetti was keen on noting that Section 45, however, does not apply in the case against the Attorney General. She said that the ruling in the landmark Privy Council case of Toussaint vs. The Attorney General of St. Vincent & the Grenadines must be noted, as the case would be “unduly and effectively undermined if he were not able to admit evidence to argue the case before the Court”.
In that regard, the Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s statements are admissible, notwithstanding the fact that the Speaker of the House did not grant such permission.
At midday, both sides had not agreed on using fresh evidence brought to the Court by PAM. Legal Counsel for the respondents, Dr. Henry Browne, informed the Court that his team had possible objections to any evidence that purportedly contains statements made by the PM. PAM’s attorney Mia Mottley informed that her side issued a subpoena requesting the Prime Minister to be present in the Court for cross-examination.
The Court held an hour-long in-chamber session to discuss the use of the evidence referring to statements made by the Prime Minister. Court then resumed proceedings this afternoon at 2:45.
