Both AG and Douglas express confidence
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – TODAY (Jan. 24) marks the third Thursday since the last hearing in the case brought against the Rt. Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas over his possession and multiple use of a Commonwealth of Dominica-issued diplomatic passport.
As the nation anxiously awaits the outcome, both the former Prime Minister (now Leader of the Opposition) and the Federation’s Attorney General, the Hon. Vincent Byron Jr., have expressed confidence in emerging victorious.
AG Byron had brought the case against Dr. Douglas to have him disqualified as an elected Member of Parliament for which Prime Minister Dr. the Hon. Timothy Harris said is an act of disloyalty to the twin-island Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis.
In October 2017, PM Harris told the nation that an investigation by the coalition Government had revealed that “Dr. Denzil Douglas, Leader of the Opposition, has a diplomatic passport – DP0000462 – issued by the Government of Dominica on the 30th of July 2015 and bearing the expiry date of the 29th February 2020. The said passport has listed his nationality as Dominica”.
He also stated that by so doing Dr. Douglas had breached the National Assembly Elections (Amendment) Act of 2009, which states that “a person shall not be qualified to be elected or appointed as a member if he is by virtue of his own act under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”.
However, in continuance of the historic saga on Thursday (Jan. 10), legal representatives for the litigants again appeared in the Basseterre High Court, where both sides presented arguments on the case before His Lordship Justice Trevor Ward, QC.
Dr. Douglas’ legal team is headed by Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan and the Government’s own is led by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes.
The Government’s team argued that by using the Commonwealth of Dominica diplomatic passport, it is an acknowledgment of allegiance since there is the presumption that Dr. Douglas was afforded protection by that country.
Astaphan however disagreed with that line of argument and is adamant that his client had never declared himself to be a citizen of Dominica.
Shortly after the day’s proceedings, Astaphan reiterated that argument while speaking to media representatives outside the Basseterre High Court.
“Our case is a very simple one; that this diplomatic passport was given to Dr. Douglas as a matter of professional and personal courtesy. He applied for it as required under the regulation. He did not declare citizenship to be Dominican at no time. Even when he travelled with his regular passport or with the diplomatic passport his nationality was always declared as St. Kitts and Nevis or Kittitian.
“But one of the points that I really wanted to make, which may be a bit beyond the legal boundaries...the reason why Dr. Douglas was put in this position with the diplomatic passport was this Prime Minister and this Minister of Foreign Affairs refused, in accordance with protocol, to give a diplomatic passport to a former Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. When Dr. Douglas explained that to the Prime Minister of Dominica, he was, how should I put it very nicely, he was very astounded, disappointed, and as a result of which and the language used by Dr. Douglas is absolutely accurate. Because of that deprivation as a matter, I think you mentioned personal and professional courtesy, it was given to him. And I can tell you the Prime Minister’s position on that is as Dr. Douglas said, because I was aware of the subsequent discussion with the Prime Minister on it. Had the common courtesy to former Prime Ministers been given we would not be here today.”
When asked about the issue of Dr. Douglas’ citizenship as Dominican under nationality on the passport, Astaphan said, “Well, that should be first settled. We have had evidence from Gaston Harris, who was instrumental in the passport system. He said there was a default setting that does it automatically. And Ms. Astona Browne, who was part of the Ministry of National Security, said the same thing. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Dominica in her letter said that Prime Minister [Douglas] did not acquire citizenship and that because he did not declare his citizenship to be, he left it blank, the default setting put Dominica in.
“But what is clear is that all the experts, including those representing the Attorney General, said the documentation revealed to them indicated that at every time that Dr. Douglas travelled, departed or landed or arrived, declared his citizenship to be St. Kitts and Nevis. So we have to prepare the submission. I think it is regrettable a former Prime Minister has to go through this time of harassment, but we will see what happens at the end of the case.”
In response to the question of his opinion on the proceedings, Dr. Douglas said, “Things are going as we anticipated. I have always said that it is a pity, and I just said it to the Attorney General, that taxpayers’ money is being wasted in this particular way when in our hospitals there are patients who are being underserviced because of lack of essential drugs for those who are critically ill and those who are acutely and chronically ill. This is really an abuse of taxpayers’ money.
“It is part of the political charade that Dr. Harris has pursued. It is a vendetta! It is part of his vindictiveness, which has become part of his very nature. I think our citizens of St. Kitts and Nevis should realize the type of person who is now in the leadership of our country. I gave Dr. Simmonds a diplomatic passport any time it was required. I believe that this is important that we understand that all this is happening because of vindictiveness of Harris refusing to provide a diplomatic passport to a former head of government and the present Leader of Opposition.”
Asked if he was optimistic about the outcome of the case, the former PM responded affirmatively and stressed that “I am not a citizen of Dominica and never pretended to be one...”
He also said that by travelling on the diplomatic passport does not mean he had taken an oath of allegiance or had any particular interest in doing so.
In an affidavit filed in the High Court Registry on February 21, 2018, Dr. Douglas had admitted to holding a diplomatic passport of the Commonwealth of Dominica, which he had used to travel. He had also admitted to filling out and signing an application form for it.
AG Byron, too, spoke to members of the local media corps and debunked Dr. Douglas’ legal team’s argument of him not taking an oath and swearing allegiance to the Commonwealth of Dominica.
He declared that that is contrary to Section 28 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis, noting “the Constitution says that you have to show an acknowledgement, you have to have an allegiance. It does not say at all in the Constitution that you have to show an allegiance”.
The AG also said: “The use of their having accepted and used the passport, and Dr. Douglas has not denied that, they actually filed in the Court that he had visited seven countries at least 10 times using a Dominican diplomatic passport. And the case is that having used that passport he falls under the protection of Dominica. And using the case, the precedent of Joyce in England in 1944, the House of Lords case, we say that that is an acknowledgement of allegiance.”
The AG was asked that since the claimant’s argument falls under perception and interpretations of the acknowledgement of allegiance, “how confident are you that you would come out victorious”?
“Well, this is not perception,” the AG responded, adding that the Court has to decide one way or the other. He however declared that they have a very strong case and that by “using the precedent of the House of Lords, which is for us like the Privy Council…there is a very strong belief on our case that we will be successful in this matter”.
Both sides will have to present their written submissions tomorrow (Jan. 25), based on evidence presented at the last hearing, after which the legal representatives will have until February 4 to respond, if necessary, to those submissions before Justice Ward can pass judgement.
Research has shown that William Brooke Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw, was an American-born, Anglo-Irish Fascist politician and Nazi propaganda broadcaster to the United Kingdom during World War II.
Joyce had acquired German citizenship in 1940.
According to Crime+Investigation UK, “It was not clear that an individual, born in the United States, raised in Ireland, who obtained British citizenship via deception for a relatively short period, and who then obtained naturalised German citizenship, could legally be tried for treason against the British Crown, by broadcasting propaganda in an area outside of the Crown’s legal jurisdiction. Clearly, if Joyce owed no allegiance to the Crown, he could not be tried for committing treason against it.”
Joyce was charged on three counts of high treason. The case went to trial on September 17, 1945 and had taken three days to be heard.
“In order to overcome the confusion surrounding his citizenship, the prosecution argued that the British passport, which Joyce had renewed immediately prior to his escape from Britain, and which was valid until 2 July 1940, entitled him to the protection afforded to all British passport holders, and that he therefore owed allegiance in return. Had he kept his US citizenship during his time in Britain, he could never have been prosecuted on treason charges in the UK.
“The judge, Mr. Justice Tucker, accepted the point of law presented, but instructed the jury to find him not guilty on the first two counts, which extended to periods beyond the validity dates of his British passport, when he was recognised in law to have been a US citizen.
“The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the single remaining count of high treason. Carrying a mandatory capital sentence, Mr. Justice Tucker had no choice but to sentence William Joyce to death by hanging.
“On 27 September 1945, Joyce's lawyers gave notice of appeal, on the grounds that the Judge had ruled incorrectly that he could be expected to owe allegiance to the Crown during his time in Germany. The appeal was heard on 30 October and dismissed on 7 November.”
According to the BBC, the Attorney General had granted permission for the Joyce’s case to be heard before the House of Lords; the highest British court, which occurred between 10th and 13th of December.
The Lords however dismissed the appeal, on a vote of three to one, on December 18, 1945 and he was hanged at Wandsworth Prison at 9 a.m. on January 3, 1946.
The bottom line however is – Who will emerge victorious in this historic case, and would the loser appeal and take the matter to the Privy Council?
