BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE fate of an election petition brought by People’s Action Movement (PAM) leader Lindsay Grant lies in the reserved ruling of the High Court, but his lawyers are adamant that it would be successful in making it to trial as there are a number of “triable” issues in the matter.
The petition seeks to challenge the election of St. Kitts-Nevis Labour candidate for Constituency Four Glenn Phillip in the January 2010 General Elections, raising charges of illegal and corrupt practices, bribery, undue influence and treating. Phillip’s attorney’s pre-empted any action on the petition by challenging its grounds with an application to strike it out, describing the petition as “vague” and “vexatious”.
Arguments in this matter began on Wednesday, July 21 and ended yesterday, following a lengthy presentation from lead counsel representing Grant in the matter, Terrence Byron. Byron’s arguments came one day after Dr. Henry Browne, lawyer representing Phillip, and Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan, representing the Supervisor of Elections, raised their concerns with the petition, arguing the rules governing an election petition and the specificity of the allegations of bribery.
However, Vincent Byron, another lawyer representing Grant, explained that as long as his team could show that the pleadings are triable, the petition ought not to be struck out.
“Just what they’ve argued for an entire two days, could have been a preliminary issue in a trial of a petition...There is a triable case as the debate and heated discussions on the law and evidence show that there is something that can be tried and...we are saying that we have a constitutional right to challenge an election in a petition and that the court should give us the opportunity to challenge it,” Byron told this media house.
In three volumes presented to the court, counsel for the petitioner established his arguments as to why the application to strike the petition should not succeed. The volumes build upon the grounds outlined in the petition and attempted to prove that the petition should see a fair trial.
Much time was spent on debating the rules that govern an election petition. Byron is of the conviction that because there are no stipulated rules governing the conduct of election petitions, the judge has the authority to hear the matter guided by her own discretion.
“We are trying to tell the learned judge that she has an inherent jurisdiction: a right to use her discretion to supplement rules where they do not exist within the Constitution or within the law. The other side has come and said she must strike out our petition, but they don’t point to any authority or rule or law why they must strike us out,” Byron said.
“That,” Byron continued, “is fundamentally our first point. How can they say they are going to strike it out when there is no regulation or authority to do that?”
The volumes also included arguments that no adequate arrangements were made last year to hear a number of objections to the voter’s list for that area – a number that Byron argues could influence the election. This denial, in his words, is a triable issue as it may mean that the election may be voided and that a new poll is called with a proper list.
Both Anthony and Browne maintain that Byron’s arguments are baseless and come merely as an abuse of process and should not get the opportunity of a hearing in order to “save precious judicial time”.
At about 5:00 p.m. yesterday, presiding judge Indra Harry-Persad reserved her ruling in the matter. Though no date was given, it is expected that judgement can be delivered in mid to late August, weeks ahead of the opening of the new law year.
