BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE hearing of an application to strike an election petition launched by the Leader of the People’s Action Movement (PAM), Lindsay Grant, began this morning (Jul. 21) at the High Court and is expected to be another contentious legal battle.
The petition submitted mid-February 2010, makes a number of allegations against St. Kitts-Nevis Labour candidate for Constituency Four Hon. Glenn Phillip and his agents, questioning the 21-vote margin win over PAM’s candidate Grant. Charges of illegal and corrupt practices, allegations of bribery, undue influence and treating were outlined in the petition.
In addition to Phillip, the election petition was brought against Supervisor of Elections Leroy Benjamin, Chairman of the Electoral Commission Hesketh Benjamin, government’s representative to the Electoral Commission William Dore and the Opposition representative to the Electoral Commission, Myrna Walwyn.
The petitioner, Grant, was represented by lead attorney Terrence Byron, supported by Vincent Byron and De Lara McClure Taylor, while lead counsel Dr. Henry Browne represented first respondent applicant Phillip. Anthony Astaphan SC and Sylvester Anthony represented the Supervisor of Elections while Arundranauth Gosai appeared on behalf Benjamin, Dore and Walwyn.
Presiding judge Indra Harry-Persad allowed Dr. Browne to establish his opening arguments against the election petition. During his hour and a half presentation to the court, Browne said the petition is “subsumed in vagueness” and fails to clearly distinguish one incident of bribery or treating. For an allegation that may subject Phillip to criminal scrutiny, Browne argued that the petition should be able to plead and prove beyond reasonable doubt that Phillip and/or his agents were involved in acts of general corruption.
“It is not open to the petitioner to lead evidence or make sundry allegations in the hope that evidence tendered or deduced will prove or might prove any one of the criminal charges alleged against the first respondent.
“The petition was obliged to outline the specific acts...The first respondent should not have to guess what he is specifically accused of doing. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the charge of bribery has been made out,” he said.
Browne outlined eight “fatalities” within the petition that causes it to be “pregnant with speculation”.
He argued that the petition fails to outline a date on which and a place in which the acts of bribery occurred; it does not state how the bribes were carried out; it does not identify the agents carrying out the bribes and it does not specify the arrangement of the said acts of bribery.
The petition also implicates the wife of the Labour candidate, Melicia Phillip, noting that she was involved in acts of treating. Browne said these allegations were “frivolous, embarrassing and vexatious”, throwing “political mud” on Phillip’s wife.
Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan referenced a number of regional cases similar to the current electoral petition to assess their electoral provisions and furthered Browne’s argument by highlighting areas of vagueness. He called for the court to strike out the petition, as it makes allegations against the government without making the Attorney-General party to the proceedings.
Arguments are set to continue this afternoon and Byron is expected to respond tomorrow (Jul. 22) morning on behalf of Grant.
