Basseterre, St. Kitts, October 26th 2009 (Labour Secretariat) - The People’s Action Movement (PAM) continues to peddle the view that their fundamental rights were breached by the Government’s adherence to recommendations to realign the constituency boundaries before the next general elections, despite the High Court ruling by Justice Errol Thomas that their fundamental rights were not breached. 

Justice Thomas gave no consideration to the PAM’s main argument that their fundamental rights were breached with respect to the changing of the constituency boundaries on “the eve of an election”.

“There can be no enforcement of rights under section 3 and 10 of the Constitution by way of a constitutional motion instituted under Section 96 of the said Constitution,” Justice Thomas’ 107-page judgment stated.

The judgment continued by saying: “In this context the Commission, not being a judicial, quasi judicial or administrative body, the matter of the protection of the law does not arise.”

An article in the SUN Newspaper of October 26, entitled “PAM Accuses Government of Continued Efforts to Change Boundaries”, deceptively stated that the Government was attempting to gerrymander the boundaries to “secure an advantage” in the upcoming general elections “despite the court ruling, which firmly states that the elections must be held on the old boundaries”.

Justice Thomas in his judgment never ruled or implied in any way that the elections be held on the present boundaries. What Justice Thomas ruled is that the Proclamation, which purported to give effect to the Constituency Boundaries Report (CBC) was made null and void by the court and of no legal effect because the judge ruled that the “Commission in accepting the recommendations of the Boundaries Technical Committee (which was deemed unconstitutional) abdicated in favour of that body”.

The learned judge paved the way for the Government to correct the procedural flaw.

The realignment of boundaries is not the decision of the Court but that of the Government to follow the recommendations of the Report of the Commonwealth Assessment Mission of 28th August to 8th September 2005, which stated that “A review of the boundaries and constituencies is long overdue and necessary in light of population shifts and growth in some constituencies, physical developments and the disparity in representation occasioned by urban/rural differences”.
The Constitution also states: “All constituencies shall contain as nearly equal number of inhabitants as appear to the Constituency Boundaries Commission to be reasonably practical…”

However, the PAM is in rebellion against Justice Thomas’ ruling, despite claiming victory in the Constituency Boundaries Case.
 
They continue to peddle the view that the Government wants to realign the boundaries “on the eve of an election” despite Justice Thomas’ ruling that timing was not an issue in the submission of the CBC Report to the Governor-General.

The PAM had argued heatedly in court that the requirement to submit the CBC Report to the Governor-General was in breach of Section 50 (2) of the Constitution, which states that the CBC, after reviewing the number and the boundaries of the constituencies by which St. Kitts and Nevis is divided, shall submit to the Governor-General a report at intervals of not less than two nor more than five years.

Justice Thomas ruled, however, that timing was not an issue and that the timeframe in Section 50(2) of the Constitution was “directory” and not mandatory, thereby throwing out PAM’s argument.

PAM’s Leader, Lindsay Grant, in the aforementioned SUN article, is calling for the Government to call the elections on the old boundaries because “time does not permit for any changes to the boundaries to be entertained at this the twelfth hour”. It is the very same Grant, who in a previous press conference, stated that “boundary change, no boundary change or any change”, his party is confident of a win at the polls.

Justice Thomas ruled that Lindsay Grant and Deputy Leader of the PAM, the Hon. Shawn Richards, had no right to heard.
“The claimants have no right to be heard or consulted in the making of recommendations by the Commission; and even if they had, it was waived by their refusal to take part in the Electoral Reform Process, the precursor to the making of the said recommendations.”

Mr. Grant is not respecting the decision of the Court.