BASSETERRE (20th August, 2009) Deputy Prime Minister testified in the High Court that PAM refused to participate in anything regarding electoral reform, including contributing to the process that led to changing of the Constituency boundaries.
 
The High Court resumed hearing arguments last Monday to prevent the Constituencies Boundaries Commission Report from being used for the next general elections.
 
Deputy Prime Minister Condor took the stand to explain the role of the various committees and their reports involved in the recent electoral reform exercise.
 
Condor also testified that the People’s Action Movement should not complain that the CBC report was bias, because numerous invitations were extended to Shawn Richards, to attend the meetings of the Parliamentary Constitutional & Electoral Reform and Boundaries Committee (PCERBC).
 
Members of the PCERBC included Dwyer Astaphan, Delano Bart, Mark Brantley, Patrice Nisbett, Shawn Richards and Condor, who was the Chairman.
 
Deputy Prime Minister Condor pointed out that every time the Committee met, he would notify Richards of the meetings.
 
However, for each notification, Richards would reply with a refusal to attend the meeting.
 
“So how can they argue that they were not aware of boundary changes?” Condor said. “Every time we were supposed to have a meeting, I would call him.”
 
High Court Judge Her Ladyship, Madame Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti, in her Contempt of Court ruling against the Attorney General, also noted that the PAM party refused to participate in the electoral reform process.
 
Justice Olivetti pointed out that in their submissions to request two injunctions against the Government, the PAM party did not disclose relevant information concerning Shawn Richard’s refusal to be a member of the Parliamentary Constitutional and Electoral Reform and Boundaries Commission.
 
“Material facts are facts which it is material for the judge to know when dealing with the application and materiality is to determine by the trial judge,” Justice Olivetti stated.
 
“That duty is an onerous one and even covers defenses open to a respondent of which the applicant should reasonably be aware.”
 
 Justice Olivetti further stated that the PAM party “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.
 
“These were all relevant matters which it was important for the judge (Justice Frances Belle) to know as it might have affected the exercise of his discretion in determining whether to grant relief or not,” said Justice Olivetti.
#