BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – AS the constituency boundaries case progresses, Leader of the opposition party the People’ s Action Movement (PAM) Lindsay Grant was called to the witness stand this morning (Aug. 18) to give supporting evidence to sworn affidavits he had filed.
Grant, whose party brought legal proceedings against the Attorney General (AG) and Constituency Boundaries Commission (CBC), filed three affidavits on July 10, July 24 and on August 14 with additional exhibits attached.
PAM criticized a CBC report with proposed constituency boundary changes, calling it “unfair” to propose changes to the boundaries at a time considered close to General Elections. The party subsequently brought a Court order against the AG and CBC that prohibited any immediate changes from being made to the country’s constituency boundaries.
Earlier in the day, the lead counsel for the AG and CBC, Anthony Astaphan QC, questioned PAM’s lack of participation in the electoral reform process and sought clarification regarding the party’s position in the matter.
The debate focussed on whether the policy paper was compiled by Grant alone, or if the input of other stakeholders was used in the compilation of the document.
Grant informed that the party’s final policy paper on the electoral reform process was penned after recommendations were obtained from a number of town hall meetings held locally and internationally.
“The policy paper reflects the views of a wide cross-section. My statement has always been that I was not averse to changes in the boundaries, but for it to be relevant there needed to be an enumeration exercise to determine the real numbers on the ground because there had been significant controversy in this regard,” Grant asserted, adding that his party “absolutely [did] not” engage in a political boycott.
Grant admitted that he spoke very briefly at the launch of the white paper on electoral reform in August 2006. He claimed, however, that he cannot recall receiving any written invitation for his party to attend private meetings with the various committees.
He also stated that his party did not publish any document regarding boundary changes, nor did it present documents with suggestions to the changes to be made to the electoral system.
In the latter part of the proceedings, questions regarding the possible effect that boundary changes would have on Grant as a candidate were tabled.
PAM’s Leader argued that the changes to his constituency do not significantly affect the number of voters, but rather the composition of his constituency.
“With the proposed change, I will now be seeing St. Christopher Three, Polling Division Six which my party lost by 133 votes [in 2004]. It’s a stronghold for the Labour party. Three hundred and seventy-five votes will be lost from St. Christopher Four, Polling Division Five and I will be getting 381 votes. The numbers remain the same but the political complexion has changed,” Grant noted.
The PAM leader said he was concerned about the “onerous task” of having to engage persons with whom he may not have otherwise engaged, adding that the necessary interaction with prospective voters may be undermined.
The court proceedings continue this afternoon and former PAM party chairman Chesley Hamilton is expected to take the stand for similar questioning and cross-examination.
