Basseterre (18th August, 2009) ---Leader of the People’s Action Movement (PAM), Lindsay Grant, floundered under cross-examination, dodged several questions and responded that he couldn’t recall when grilled on the stand on Tuesday by Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan in the Constituency Boundaries Case being played out in the High Court.

The case resumed on August 17 with opening arguments on the substantive matter, after a 10 day break, with a new judge, Justice Errol Thomas.  

Grant maintained under cross-examination as he has done outside the court that “we (PAM) are ready for general elections, whether it is old boundaries, new boundaries, and any boundaries” because the PAM is going to win the elections.

Despite such a statement, Grant has alleged that the Government is attempting to rig the boundaries on the “eve of an election” so that they can win, and that he faces prejudice as a result of these changes.

On Monday, lead lawyer for the PAM, Mia Mottley Q.C., said that the constituency boundary changes places the Hon. Shawn Richards, the lone PAM Parliamentarian and representative for Constituency #5 at an advantage, obfuscating claims made by the Opposition that the government was attempting to gerrymander the boundaries.   

Grant said he couldn’t recall that his party received any letters inviting them to participate on the electoral reform debate from the Electoral Reform Committee (ERC) although the ERC said that letters were sent to the PAM inviting them to participate.

Prime Minister Denzil Douglas and Deputy Prime Minister Sam Condor have repeatedly said that the PAM refused any invitation to participate in the debate on electoral reform.

High Court Judge, Her Ladyship Madame Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti, in a ruling on August 7, in which she denied an application to strike out an injunction filed by the PAM to prevent any use of the Constituency Boundary Report, implied that if Grant and Richards had revealed that they didn’t take part in the electoral reform process the injunctions may not have been granted by the court.  

Justice  is well made out and accepted that Richards and Grant “breached their duty to make full and fair disclosure in that they did not inform the Court of (i) SRO 18/2006 which sets out the electoral reform policy, (ii) that Mr. Richards had been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Constitutional and Electoral Reform and Boundaries Commission (iii) that he (Richards) and PAM, the political party which he represents had effectively refused to participate in the business of the Boundaries Technical Committee,” Justice Joseph-Olivetti said in her judgment.

When asked under cross-examination if the PAM boycotted the electoral reform process, Grant’s response was “absolutely not”.
Grant went on to say that the electoral reform debate had a myriad of avenues where they could have posited their position and they undertook as a responsible party to engage their supporters in a series of town hall meetings locally and abroad.

He claimed that participation not only means articulating one’s position in front of a committee but that it takes into account policy papers from institutions, individuals  and persons interested in the debate.

The opposition lawyers are arguing that the Constituency Boundaries Commission Report which recommended changes to the constituency boundaries is in breach of the Constitution with respect to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The PAM website stated that the party’s philosophy is that there is to be no changes in the boundaries unless a revised voters list is finalized.

“My statement has always been that I am adverse to changes in the boundaries and that for it to be relevant there needs to be an enumeration exercise to determine the real numbers on the ground because there has been significant controversy in this regard,” Grant said.

The Report of the Commonwealth Assessment Mission of 2005 recommended that a programme of comprehensive electoral reforms be undertaken by the government of St. Kitts and Nevis.

The Report was broad-based and outlined that Constitutional amendments were needed to establish on an independent basis an Electoral and Boundaries Commission to be selected on a criteria which requires wider consultation especially with major national political parties which may not be represented in Parliament and empowering it to advise Parliament on the delineation of constituency boundaries, completely supervise the electoral process from registration to polling day, appoint a Supervisor of Elections and other election officials so as to ensure confidence in the system by those involved.

The report also recommended a need for a comprehensive review of constituency boundaries by the Electoral and Boundaries Commission to reflect balance and fairness in the number of electors. 

It suggested also that the Electoral and Boundaries Commission undertake a systematic national registration and enumeration exercise to ensure that there is a reliable and accurate register of electors; the introduction of voter identification technology; the identification of non-resident electors; the regular removal of deceased persons from the register and the requirement that voters (other than those residing overseas at the time of an election) are registered in the constituency of their normal residence.

Call was also made for a code to govern media coverage to ensure balance and fairness in election reporting; a need for a voter education exercise to explain and clarify the current election laws and to identify the issues of reform; the need to enhance the participation of women in St. Kitts and Nevis politics; and the need for strengthening the role of civic organizations in the democratic process.