BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – AS government lawyers ended their defense of the National Assembly (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 2009 today (Nov. 6), the opposition People’s Action Movement party (PAM) has been awarded costs in the matter.
After about one and a half hours of arguments from both sides, presiding judge His Lordship Justice Francis Belle ruled that PAM be paid EC $3500 to cover costs incurred in preparing for the today’s court hearing.
In early July, Parliament had passed the new legislation which states that on Nomination Day the returning officer shall “receive and approve” proof of renunciation for prospective general election candidates who were once holders of dual citizenship.
PAM immediately made objections to the legislation and lawyers representing the government subsequently advised Parliament to revise the legislation in order to “clarify its intentions”.
In his opening statement this morning, lead counsel for the government Anthony Astaphan SC explained to the Court that in addition to removing difficulties with the legislation, it was necessary for the amendment to be improved.
“The amendment removes any impediment whatsoever of any discretion or decision being made by any officer of the executive or any election officer seeking to or purporting to make a decision on qualification [of prospective candidates]. There is now no ambiguity or uncertainty that the only authority that can make any decision of qualification... is the High Court,” Astaphan asserted.
He stressed that the government did the right thing by revising the legislation, and that there is now “no basis for the continuation” of the challenge.
When asked about costs being paid to PAM, Senior Counsel Astaphan argued that “an order with cost for doing the right thing would be unfair and oppressive”.
However, PAM’s lead counsel Constance Mitcham said her clients were forced to go to Court to remove what she called a “real threat of unconstitutional legislation”. She added that although the legislation was “obviously bad”, it was brought to Court and any withdrawal of the matter would make her party entitled to costs.
“The Constitution is quite clear that matters of elections are to be dealt with by the High Court and there is no ambiguity about it. Because of their actions, we were forced to come here to remove those threats from our candidates. Therefore, under the general principles of our laws and rules, we are entitled to cost,” Mitcham argued to the Court.
Justice Belle stated that at first glance he found a number of things that were wrong with the original amendment, adding that it “did not sit comfortably on the statute books of this country”.
He said while he was happy with the conduct of the Attorney-General in revising the legislation, the prudent thing was to seek guidance from the Court before making any amendments to it.
Belle said that PAM lawyers “lived up to their civic responsibilities to challenge a legislation with which they had serious problems”.
He did stress, however, that “it was unnecessary for this matter to come to Court, [as] it could have been resolved by the political process”.
Lawyers representing the government have noted their intention to appeal PAM being awarded costs on the substantive matters, although they were not entirely dealt with. The appeal is to be filed this afternoon.
