By James McCall
I don’t need to lay much ground work for this because the country knows only too well the circumstances behind last year’s conviction - for contempt of court, of the then Attorney General, my schoolmate and friend, Dr. Dennis Merchant. An appeal was launched almost immediately and, on Monday September 13th, 2010, the Court of Appeals handed down its decision, overturning Judge Rita Joseph-Olivetti’s ruling.
After suffering a string of defeats in court over the past year or so, it is easy to understand that this case provided a much-needed shot in the arm for the government and its affiliates. It was such a moral booster that the Prime Minister and Mr. Tony Astaphan, lead counsel for Dr. Merchant, went on the record calling for apologies from the Hon. Mark Brantley, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as the Hon. Shawn Richards who had brought the case against Dr. Merchant in the first instance. Their sin was to have called for Merchant’s immediate resignation at the time of the conviction.
The situation at the time of the conviction was that a matter had been taken before the court, seeking to prevent the government from making use of a report that recommended certain boundary changes and which the Prime Minister appeared willing to go ahead with. The court granted an injunction.
At some stage, another matter was being heard in court and Dr. Merchant, in his capacity as Attorney General, requested an adjournment. The opposition contended that he sought that adjournment in order to attend a hastily convened meeting of the National Assembly, without informing the court that that was his reason.
At that meeting, the Prime Minister tabled the said report, notwithstanding the fact there stood a High Court injunction against its use. In light of government’s majority, the matter was passed into law. The wording of the bill was to the effect that upon the dissolution of parliament ahead of general elections, the changes would apply. This was July of 2009. Elections were constitutionally due on December 16th of that year but, as the system had always worked, up to that point an election had never been held on the date on which it was constitutionally due; always weeks, months or even years before.
The bill would have brought sweeping changes to the constituencies in St. Kitts and Nevis in a manner that the opposition parties on both islands feared would have worked against them. All this came against the backdrop of the Prime Minister’s promise/threat to “…gee dem electoral reform an’ buss dey tail wid it…”. One also remembers Deputy Prime Minister Sam Condor’s exhortation, in speaking on the same subject, that: “…dey ain’ gon like it…”. Understandably, the opposition parties were nervous at the prospect of having boundaries shifted on them at the eleventh hour and sought redress in the courts.
The court was one of competent jurisdiction. Judge Rita Joseph-Olvetti handed down the conviction on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented to her at the time. It was not as though there had been any measure of impropriety in doing so; it was not as if the learned judge had engaged in any travesty of justice by deciding as she did.
In my view, therefore, the calls from Attorney Astaphan and the Prime Minister would seem to say more than they do at face value. If Messrs. Brantley and Richards are now being asked to apologise for having favoured the learned judge’s decision by calling for Dr. Merchant’s resignation in July of 2009, Mr. Astaphan and Dr. Douglas would seem to subtly imply that the learned judge also needs to apologise. This, as far as I am concerned, brings them dangerously close to the edge.
Insofar as apologies go, I just came across another situation that literally screams for one.
Going back to 1993, the then Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Dr. Denzil Douglas, and Labour candidate for Constituency 8 Mr. Cedric Liburd were heard to have made some spurious remarks about the then General Manager of National Caribbean Insurance Company, Mr. Eugene Hamilton. For the next 17 years, including the past 15 over which Dr. Douglas has been the Prime Minister, Mr. Hamilton tried unsuccessfully to have a case for defamation of his character heard in the courts. Lest there be any misunderstanding, it was not that the court refused to hear the case; instead, by dint of unseen hand(s) the matter never reached the court until 2010.
The same court that overturned Dr. Merchant’s conviction, ruled in Mr. Hamilton’s favour. As such, the question is, would the Prime Minister and Mr. Liburd now find it necessary to apologise to Mr. Hamilton, having been found by a court of competent jurisdiction, to have said things about him that were not true?
To apologise or not to apologise: that is the question!
.jpg)