BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE validity of Justice Lionel Jones’ ruling that the Honourable Mark Brantley’s constitutional right of freedom of expression was breached was one of the focal points of arguments made at the Appeal Court in the Nevis Election Petition Appeal case yesterday (July 6).
Yesterday was the second day of the hearing of appeals filed by Premier Joseph Parry, Deputy Premier Hensley Daniel of the Nevis Reformation Party and others, as well as Brantley, Deputy Leader of the Concerned Citizens Movement.
Background information
The appeals sprang from events that occurred before and after the July 2011 local elections in Nevis which was contested by both Daniel and Brantley in Constituency Number Two (St. Johns).
Brantley alleged that 200-plus names were illegally removed from the Voters’ List before the elections. He lost that election by 14 votes and, shortly thereafter, he filed a petition before the High Court which subsequently declared the election for that constituency null and void.
The trial judge, Justice Lionel Jones, also ruled that the 200-plus names that were illegally removed were NOT to be restored to the list.
Brantley’s appeal
In Brantley’s appeal, he – via his counsel Douglas Mendes SC – is asking the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the lower court in its finding that the right of freedom of expression which is guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the land was breached.
The breach took place – according to Brantley’s argument –when the CCM was denied access to state-owned media Nevis Newscast (NNC).
Also part of Brantley’s appeal, he is asking the court to rule that the 200-plus names to be reinstated.
Browne’s argument
Dr. Henry Browne – counsel for Parry and Daniel – argued before Justices of Appeal Janice Pereira, Ian Donaldson Mitchell and Davidson Baptiste that Brantley’s claim of a breach of his constitutional right is flawed, unfounded and therefore should be rejected by the court.
He contended that, had Brantley’s claim encompassed a number of vital elements and material facts, it would have grounds for consideration at the appellate court.
His criticisms of Brantley’s case included:
• If the complaint was that, as a result of the misconduct of the NIA, the CCM could not get its message out, that would have been a different argument;
• Had Brantley explained the situation which gave rise to an advantage to the NRP and disadvantage to the CCM, then he would have had an argument;
• Brantley cannot claim to be denied access when he made no request for access. Had he made a request for access and received a reply denying such or received no response, that would have been grounds for an argument;
• If the CCM is unaware of the terms of access which was granted to the NRP for coverage, it cannot complain of being denied equal access; and
• Even if there is the constitutional right to freedom of expression, it is not absolute, especially since the political opinions which Brantley or the CCM wanted to express were unknown.
Mendes’ rebuttal
Brantley’s counsel – however – in addressing the court, countered Browne’s submission as having very little or no merit and explained that there are specific circumstances and evidence which substantiates Brantley’s claim of breach of a constitutional right.
He said the issue that is before the court is the use of state funds and resources by party powers for in the promotion of their own political agenda, during the election campaign.
Mendes’ explanation to the court was that just as the CCM did not request access or coverage by the NNC, the Nevis Reformation Party (NRP) of which both Parry and Daniel are members did not request coverage; yet the NRP was granted access and received coverage of its events.
In recalling the evidence presented by Premier Parry’s Permanent Secretary, Mendes said she testified that her instructions were that the NNC was only to provide coverage for the activities of the NRP and not those of the CCM.
Mendes said this behaviour by Parry is equalled to an abuse of process and discrimination on the basis of political affiliation.
It is on these grounds that Mendes admonished the court to uphold the lower court’s ruling that Brantley’s constitutionally-afforded right to freedom of expression was disregarded.
