BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – LAWYERS representing the two opposition Members of Parliament in the judicial review of the Constituency Boundaries Commission (CBC) have made a formal application to the Court requesting the audio recordings and/or transcripts of all six meetings of the CBC.
The call had been repeatedly made by Lead Counsel Mia Mottley QC since Tuesday (Dec. 1) that her team required the minutes and tape recordings of the meetings of the CBC, as they bore significance in the case. Mottley was granted the minutes but was refused the tape recordings by His Lordship Justice Francis Belle after launching a request of full disclosure.
Having reviewed the minutes received on Tuesday night, lawyers for the opposition parliamentarians, Hon. Mark Brantley, Leader of the Opposition and parliamentary representative of the Concerned Citizen’s Movement (CCM) and Hon. Shawn Richards, lone parliamentarian for the People’s Action Movement (PAM), had much concern.
They alleged that there were a number of apparent inconsistencies and fabrications that “jump out at us” from just a cursory examination of the minutes. As such during yesterday’s hearing, Mottley informed the Court of the application requesting the audio recordings and/ or transcripts, outlining the grounds on which they were necessary.
Supplemental affidavits were submitted by Hon. Vance Amory, one of two CCM parliamentarians who had resigned from the CBC on November 16.
Amory, in his supporting evidence, said there were requests made for current statistics to be gathered and the need for a surveyor to be appointed, both of which were mentioned “nowhere in the minutes” according to Mottley.
Amory also gave evidence stating that there was an “overemphasis on equality of numbers within constituencies” not taking into account administrative boundaries and geographical features.
Mottley cited other grounds, including irregularities with the contents of the minutes and the agenda for the meetings and the distribution of the Commonwealth Assessment Mission Report to be used for “information and guidance” in realigning the boundaries. She argued that the totality of grounds makes the conduct of the Commission “unreasonable, unfair and in breach of natural justice”.
A main point of contention surfaced when the section of the minutes relating to boundary changes in Nevis was reviewed. According to Mottley, the minutes for the meeting of November 11 indicate that discussions on changes to the constituency boundaries in Nevis were to be done. However, an affidavit filed by Amory states firmly that no discussions about Nevis came up during the meeting.
In support to Amory’s claim, the minutes of a November 13 CBC meeting reflect that changes to the boundaries in Nevis were proposed at a time when both Nevisian members were absent.
Constance Mitcham, local lawyer representing Brantley and Richards, spoke to the media about this act as “bad faith”. Mitcham explained that the CCM representatives had informed the Chairman of the CBC they would be absent at the Nov. 13 meeting, but the minutes reflect changes to that island on the day both representatives were absent.
“Low and behold on November 13 when they were absent, and had already indicated that they would be absent, that was the time the Commission decided to all of a sudden deal with Nevis boundaries when they knew that the Nevis members would be absent.
“It shows bad faith that you know those two members are from Nevis and you are going to deal with an important island like Nevis just when they told you they have to be absent? It shows bad faith!” Mitcham argued.
Government lawyer Anthony Astaphan opened his presentations in strong objection to Mottley’s assertion that no mention of changes to boundaries in Nevis were made during the meeting of November 11.
He informed that an affidavit filed by Hon. Cedric Liburd, a CBC member, indicated that the same basis used in St. Kitts to review constituency boundaries would also be done for Nevis. Astaphan therefore agreed to make a recording of that meeting available to the claimants.
Astaphan said Amory knew that the November 13 meeting would have addressed boundary changes in Nevis. He also referred to statements made by Brantley during his cross-examination on Tuesday, indicating that the two CBC members had plans of resigning during that same week.
According to Astaphan, Amory and Perkins had no intention to attend any other meeting.
As per the other grounds brought by Mottley, Astaphan deemed them “absolutely misleading” because they “fail to take into consideration what transpired”. There is nothing wrong with “overemphasis” on equity in numbers, according to Astaphan, explaining that it is a paramount rule of the Constitution.
Reference to the October 19 ruling of His Lordship Justice Errol Thomas, in a related matter, was made to show that allegations of bad faith must not be merely based on speculation.
“The burden of proof with relation to bad faith is high...bias, bad faith and ulterior motive cannot be established by surmise or speculation,” Astaphan noted.
Astaphan refused to submit the audiotapes of the other five meetings as he said their grounds were “nonstarters”.
Justice Belle is expected to rule on the submission of the audiotapes for the remaining five meetings when Court convenes this morning at 10:00.
