BASSETERRE St. Kitts, November 29th, 2011 -- It is a fact that the Leewards Times supports the NRP Government, and Kenneth Williams’ Observer backs the CCM and, in particular, Mark Brantley. It strains credibility for the Observer to describe itself every week on the front page as ‘The Federation’s politically independent news source’.
We know the slant that each newspaper will put on a particular set of facts. Nevertheless, when Kenneth Williams is sent to prison as a debtor it is in poor taste for the Leewards to put a picture of their business and political competitor, behind bars, on its front page in two issues and run a major feature item on him and his misfortunes, his alleged lies, and the alleged gross misconduct of his newspaper.
I am not defending whatever conduct led up to Kenneth Williams owing over EC$500,000.00 to Social Security, but honestly how did they allow this to build up so massively? I don’t like this gloating over an opponent’s personal and public misfortunes.
Perhaps we should think of, and if necessary legislate for, better methods of obliging debtors to settle their debts than sending them to prison where they cannot earn. Debtors take up space in our grossly overcrowded prison.
The latest figures show that our prison houses five prisoners for every one originally designed space. Why has the building of a new prison not yet begun? We were told, I believe, that funds had been made available.
Perhaps when Mr. Williams is free, he will, with personal knowledge of the current prison conditions, start a campaign for better conditions, and in that I trust he would be joined by the Leewards. Perhaps there will be interesting legal actions brought by prisoners whose human rights are being violated against Ministers who have failed to take appropriate action. Perhaps large sums will be awarded which can be claimed personally from some Minister(s).
Prisoners are not the only persons who may petition the Court. Current today and much talked about is the Petition of the losing candidate for St. John’s in the July 2011 Nevis island elections. Mr. Brantley, the loser, alleges fraud in the electoral office.
He claims that the names of over 200 voters were summarily taken off the voters lists by the Registration Officer and that no or inadequate notice was given to those voters of the intended removal of their names from the voters list contrary to law.
If he is right it is a very serious matter, and the Judgement of the Court should reflect it. There may on the other hand be a perfectly innocent explanation. It is Section 23 of the National Assembly Elections Act that says what the Registration Officer must do upon receipt of an objection to a particular name being on a particular voters list. Here it is:
‘23. Consideration of Claims and Objections.
1. The Registration Officer shall consider all claims and objections of which notice has been given to him or her in accordance with these Regulations and for that purpose shall give at least five days notice in writing, of which there is evidence that it has been received by the addressee, or notice by registered post, to the claimants or objectors and the persons in respect of whose registration or claims notice of objection has been given of the time and place at which the claims or objections will be considered by him or her.
2. Agents of political parties or candidates shall be entitled to be present at any consideration of claims or objections’
This section gives two methods either of which may be used by the Registration Officer (RO) to give notice to a person whose name has been objected to of the time and place in which that objection will be considered.
Method one is five or more days notice in writing. If this method is used there has to be evidence that the addressee actually received it. The second method is notice by registered post. The Act does not oblige the RO to check whether the addressee did receive his or her registered post.
The addressee therefore is deemed to have received a notice sent by registered post. I would say that despatch by ordinary post will not under this Act constitute proof that the addressee received it. So the sensible way of giving notice is either by personal service or by registered post.
I do not know what happened, but if the RO chose the simpler method, that of registered post, then he or she has given proper notice and must hold the consideration of claim or objection as detailed in the Notice. We will find out about this and more during the two weeks commencing January 16th 2012.
The Opposition has made some extravagant claims. The first, that the Government is illegitimate, is simply wrong. No court could hold that a party winning a majority of parliamentary seats and whose members have been constitutionally sworn in, and have since then been actively engaged in the functions of governing should not be doing so because they are illegitimate.
I suppose there is nothing wrong in the CCM claiming a victory when the Government side concede admission of eleven affidavits without cross- examination of those who depose. It is probably a hollow meaningless victory. Government lawyers simply would not have conceded, if they had thought they were damaging their case.
To say that, 11 from 14, Daniel’s winning margin, now already shows, before other affidavits are adduced in evidence, that that margin is down to three is silly. We do not know whether these 11 should have been on the voters list.
All we know is that they were not, and apparently that they would have voted for Brantley. We do not know how other omitted voters, who have not deposed, might have voted. You can be sure that the CCM side would not have deposed a struck off voter if he or she said he would have voted for Daniel. The kernel of the case has to be ‘Should these people have been on the list and were their names removed after due process?’
Brantley says that whatever happens he and his party will respect the decision of the Court. But some of the bloggers on Nevis Politics and callers to the Wednesday programme have already found in favour of the CCM and imply that they are not going to stand for any appeal by NRP.
They imply that their intention then would be to take the matter into their own hands and rid this island of what they call ‘this illegal NRP Government’. I hope I have misunderstood. The Court is set, in the second half of January, to find what the facts are and assess the legal consequences.
It is likely that many facts will emerge that are unknown to most of us at the moment. Some of these facts will not be good news for supporters of one or perhaps both political parties. The Court will, to the best of its impartial but human ability make a judgement.
So much hangs on the result of this case that it is sure that the losing side, whichever it may be, will appeal.The only decent and democratic thing to do is to wait patiently for final resolution and accept it whatever it may be.
If there are impetuous persons keen to earn themselves extreme discomfort on a small piece of concrete floor at Baker’s Corner, let them also consider that they will be the ones who may destroy not only the quiet and peaceful image of our island which so many of all political persuasions have worked hard to build up, but our democracy governed by the rule of law.
Syndicated columnist
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
