BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – COUNSEL for the government in the Federation’s constituency boundaries court case was given the green light yesterday (Sep. 23) to appeal a ruling made by Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti, the second judge presiding over the constitutional matter.
On July 31, counsel for the government presented arguments to Justice Olivetti explaining why a July 8 injunction, granted by His Lordship Francis Belle, should be removed. The injunction prohibited the Electoral Commission and the Supervisor of Elections from acting upon any boundary changes proposed in a report by the Constituency Boundaries Commission.
However, in delivering the verdict on August 7, Justice Olivetti refused to discharge these orders on a variety of grounds.
Written submissions were then made to the Court of Appeal, and seven weeks later a single judge, Justice of Appeal Michael Gordon, issued an order granting leave for the government to appeal Olivetti’s decision.
After the ruling, which was made in St. Lucia, lead counsel for the government Anthony Astaphan SC explained the implications of the ruling to the media.
“What was for us most satisfying was that that decision was made after considering submissions made both on behalf of the appellants and the respondents, Lindsay Grant and Hon. Shawn Richards. So, it is a good first step, it means that we have passed a threshold required for the successful prosecution of an appeal,” he said.
Sylvester Anthony, another lawyer representing the government in the matter, explained that while the leave to appeal does not speak to the substantive matters of the case, it has taken his team “one step closer” to a favourable trial.
“The fact that we were able to get leave indicates that the Court of Appeal is willing to review the ruling of Justice Olivetti,” Anthony noted.
As it relates to appealing the contempt of court ruling made against Attorney-General Hon. Dr. Dennis Merchant, the Court of Appeal proposed to have the matter dealt with on October 8 in St. Vincent. According to senior counsel Astaphan, the appellants readily accepted the suggestion, as it shows that the appeal is “very urgent”.
He said he is waiting for the respondents in this matter, the opposition People’s Action Movement (PAM) party, to agree with the proposed date so the appeal can be addressed expeditiously.
“I’m hoping that they [PAM] will not prevaricate and withhold consent to delay the hearing of the appeal in relation to the contempt findings against the Attorney-General,” he stated.
“We are putting the challenge out to the lawyers of Mr. Richards: If you think your appeal is so absolutely strong, let us agree to have this matter [addressed]... to get an expeditious hearing from the Court. Let’s stop playing politics with this and get these matters heard so that we can go and have the General Elections and let the people decide,” Astaphan stated.
Constance Mitchum, counsel representing PAM in this matter, told SKNVibes that the permission for the applicants to appeal is a “non-issue”, as has no bearing on the case.
“Normally, persons have the right to appeal, but there are a few cases where permission is required to do so. So, it does not decide the appeal because the matters still have to be argued fully,” Mitchum noted.
When asked about PAM consenting to the appeal on the contempt ruling, Mitchum stated that the party has not made any agreements, adding that concerns of travel expenses must first be resolved before a decision is made.
“It is not something we would agree to at all,” she concluded.
The judgement in the substantive matters, to be made by His Lordship Errol Thomas, is still being awaited by both sides.
