Mr. Anthony Astaphan of Dominica

of Appeal on Wednesday ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals from

three Labour Party Government Ministers, who won their seats in the October

2004 General Elections or from their People's Action Movement opponents,

until the Election Petitions brought by the latter are fully ventilated in

the High Court.

"There were Appeals from the respective ministers, Mr. Cedric Liburd

(Parliamentary Representative for St. Christopher 8); Mr. Asim Martin

(Parliamentary Representative for St. Christopher 1) and Mr. Rupert Herbert

(Parliamentary Representative for St. Christopher 4). There were also

appeals from Mr. Lindsay Grant, PAM Political Leader and candidate for St.

Christopher 4), Mr. Eugene Hamilton, candidate for St. Christopher 8 and Mr.

Glenroy Blanchette (candidate for St. Christopher 1)," said Senior Counsel,

Mr. Anthony Astaphan of Dominica.

"Both sides had appealed and all that the Court of Appeal decided yesterday

(Wednesday), is that it has no jurisdiction to hear the Grant, Hamilton or

Blanchette appeals nor the Cedric Liburd's nor the other Ministers (Herbert

and Martin) appeals, (and) that you must go back to trial, not for the

determination of the petitions, but for the determination of the parts of

the petitions that were left behind, because what the learned trial judge

(His Lordship Mr. Justice Davidson Baptiste) did (in an earlier ruling), was

to severely amputate (struck out major portions) of the petitions. He did

not decapitate it, which is what we really wanted him to do," said Astaphan,

in an interview with National Echo.

He said that the lawyers representing the Labour Party ministers, had taken

the position from day one, that "these petitions are totally without merit."

"So we have now, a very small part of these petitions going back to court to

be determined by the trial judge. Since the decision in these cases in St.

Kitts, there have been decisions from the Commonwealth of Dominica, arising

out of the (election) petitions and the (recent) elections there, that are

going to be of considerable assistance in this matter. So we're not unduly

worried at all," Astaphan said .

Ask what were some of the allegations struck out by Justice Davidson

Baptiste in an earlier ruling of the High Court, Mr. Astaphan said: "all of

the allegations of corruption, bribery, undue influence, all the

allegations; all of the serious or substantive allegations however,

unsupported by the evidence, they still are serious allegations against all

of the Ministers of Government, have been thrown out."

Mr. Astaphan indicated that when the matter goes back to trial by the Judge

who will be appointed to hear the matters, "the real parties to the

petitions would be the Supervisor of Elections and the Returning Officers,

in so far as the Register of Voters are concerned."

"I think the singular issue remaining, is whether or not they was compliance

with the Register of Voters or whether or not, that Mr. Grant, Mr.

Blanchette and Mr. Hamilton, or anybody on their part, had filed objections

in accordance with the law," said Mr. Astaphan.

He pointed out that the law in St. Kitts and Nevis "is very, very

different."

"Under the Election Laws (here), you are required to publish the list

several times a year; if it's not every month, it's quarterly. So in St.

Kitts (and Nevis), you have so many opportunities to object to that Register

of Voters, whereas in Dominica it comes out once a year, maybe St. Lucia,

once a year, so the suggestion that there was no opportunity to object here,

is one that the court is going to have to determine within the context of a

very, very open legislation in St. Kitts (and Nevis)," said Astaphan.

He disclosed that that the Labour Party candidates who were reappointed

Ministers of Government since the October 2004 General Election, from the

time the first decision of Mr. Justice Baptiste, wanted to go to trial.

"It is the lawyers, myself and I have to take responsibility for this, that

advised against the trial, which is that they had advised that the matter

should be fully ventilated in the Court of Appeal, for a very simple reason,

that we did not think that the Supervisor of Elections or the Returning

Officers should succumb, or to be subjected to a process that has its severe

political overtures, if in fact that we could get it struck out in totality

by the Court of Appeal and most election petitions suffer a familiar faith,"

said Astaphan.

He added: "It just so happens that in so advising the ministers, we did

overlook the provision of the Constitution and so did they (PAM). It is

important that people understand that we were not the only ones who

appealed. They (PAM) appealed, Mr. Grant, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Blanchette

appealed. There were five submissions, five extensive submissions in support

of their appeal and filed extensive submissions in answer to our submissions

on the appeal."

"You must be aware that this matter has come to the Court of Appeal before.

The lawyers for Mr. Grant, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Blanchette, had ask for more

time to prepare their appeals. So the significance of all this now, is that

their Appeals against the Judge's dismissal of bribery, of corruption, and

of undue influence are gone. Dead!. No resurrection for that. It has gone,"

Astaphan explained.

"So the only issue now relates and surrounds the Register of Voters and as

we say back home "we shall see, when we see it," but the trial day is going

to come," he said.

In reacting to a statement headlined "PAM WINS THE DAY" issued by the

Secretariat of the People's Action Movement, on the decision of the Court

of Appeal, Mr. Astaphan, noted that the PAM candidates had appealed the

earlier ruling of the High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Davidson Baptiste, who

had thrown out the allegations of bribery, corruption and undue influence.

"Now on the question of both appeals being thrown out, the general practice

is the party that loses must pay cost. In this instance, the Court of Appeal

did not order cost in favour of Mr. Grant, Mr. Blanchette and Mr. Hamilton.

The reason for that is obvious. The Court of Appeal perhaps thought that

the issue of the premature appeals was a valid one, but that neither side

was worthy of any comforting cost and they made no order as to cost, which

is significant, because it means that no claim worthiness or no finger

pointing could be directed at Mr. Liburd, or Mr. Herbert or Mr. Martin, or

indeed to the Supervisor of Elections or the Returning Officers," said Mr.

Astaphan.

"We declared that there ought not to be any cost and the Judges agreed with

us based largely on their conduct of the case, because my submission was

based on the fact that the manner in which they have handled this appeal and

the late raising of this issue was worthy of condemnation by no other as to

cost and the court agreed," said Astaphan.

"So I am not sure what they mean by Pam wins the Day, because the

substantive parts of the petitions remain dead, absolutely no benediction or

resurrection. So we have a singular issue on the Register of Voters and we

shall see what's going to happen," said Astaphan.

He said the lawyers for the Respondents in the Petitions "were extremely

confident and we're not going to be perturbed by the external politicking

taking place outside the court. This case is going to be won in the court,

not on the radio, not on the platform and not on the streets."