I wrote the balance of this article before the Dissolution announcement. It still remains relevant. Point to the Premier: surely you did not instruct the Governor General, you advised him (according to the Constitution). Point to Carlisle Powell: Mr. Parry did not dissolve the House, that was done by the Governor General.
Each time I turn on VON’s ‘Let’s Talk’ I hear Elton Marcus Hull, supported by some of his fellow ‘Heavyweights’ proclaiming that Mr. Parry cannot call a General Election. He must have a By Election because that is what the Constitution requires. With respect, and in order to clarify, they are wrong. It is a fact that the St. John’s seat by virtue of a Court ruling fell vacant, and that this vacancy was upheld by an Appeal Court ruling given on August 27th 2012. The ‘Heavyweights’ rely upon S.48 (2) of the Constitution which reads:
‘Where the seat of a member of the National Assembly falls vacant otherwise than by reason of a dissolution of Parliament
(a) if the vacant seat is that of a Representative a by-election shall be held…
(b) …to fill the vacancy within ninety days of the occurrence of the vacancy unless Parliament is sooner dissolved.’
Mr. Hull and the others seem not to notice the last five words of the sub section.
By a combination of sections 47 and 104 we find that the Premier can, after consultation with the Prime Minister, advise the Governor General (GG) to dissolve the House. We find that the GG shall act in accordance with the advice of the Premier and that he may at any time dissolve Parliament.
Mr. Hull is asking us to believe that the Constitution, as soon as a single seat falls vacant, suspends the Premier’s right to advise the GG to dissolve the House and the authority of the GG to act upon that advice. There is no clause of this kind. One should not expect to find such a curious limitation. What if, say three weeks after the single seat fell vacant, the Administration lost a vote of confidence in the House, it would then be absurd to suggest that the Premier could not advise the GG to dissolve the House.
Once the House is dissolved, it makes no sense to hold a By-Election purportedly to return one member to a dissolved House, and that is why s.48 (1) reads (with an interpretation that allows it to reference the Nevis House of Assembly) ‘A General Election of Members of the National Assembly shall be held at such time within 90 days after any dissolution of Parliament as the GG may appoint.’
By-Election or General Election is a non point. The Premier has said that we will have a General Election. The House is dissolved. That therefore is what we shall have. He declared that he did not want the whole direction of the country to be decided by the result of a By-Election for one seat. That is perfectly valid but he will also have calculated that a General Election gives him a better chance of remaining in power. There are two very close seats – St. John’s and St. James.
If he has a By-Election he has already conceded St. James. In a General Election if he wins either of those two and retains St. Thomas and St. Paul’s, he will be returned to office. His party would not have confidence in him if he chose what is clearly the less attractive option. I was sorry to hear Calvin Fahie say on VON that the St. John’s seat has been without a representative for almost two years and that the people were quiet now, but… Surely Mr. Daniel was a member of the NIA and of the Cabinet until August 27th 2012, and as such he represented St. John’s until that date.
The Court declared certain activities in the Registration Office unlawful, but there is nothing unlawful in the date, November 8th, or fact of the Dissolution and provided a General Election is held within 90 days, all is lawful and we should expect everyone to recognise this. There is no reason not to. Let everyone campaign vigorously on the issues.
I hope that the CCM supporting panel and host at ‘Let’s Talk’ will leave the ‘Must have a By Election’ non point, and turn their efforts and influence elsewhere.
I wrote two well researched articles on the proposed Oil Storage facility which I was glad to hear quoted, with attribution, by Mr. Hull and on another programme by Mr. Brantley, but there is much more to uncover and put to the public. It would be good if the panel would do its own research and try to bring it forward objectively. For instance what is going to be the perception of tourists and the travel trade of such a large fuel terminal? Who is behind this Canadian shell company? What are the probable long term toxic effects of release of various petroleum based gases?
Will Madame Tourist really say to her spouse ‘I am so looking forward to that light breeze of benzene with my breakfast’? And ‘I can’t wait for the waft of toluene with my toast’? Will Miss Eco Tourist tell her Daddy that Nevis must be the greenest energy producer in the Caribbean as it has even painted its oil storage tanks green? May I please be joined in research into the probable or possible consequences of an oil terminal on Nevis by the ‘Let’s Talk’ panellist researchers, and others.
Back to election matters. The CCM say that neither Mr. Parry nor Mr. Daniel should or can run as a candidate. If their NRP want them to run then they should run provided the Appeal Court Judgement of August 27th has not disqualified them from so doing. I wrote in a late September article about this Judgement. What I said, in compressed form, was that: the Appeal Court wrote under the heading ‘Costs’ ‘…having found that the learned trial judge, in the light of the facts found by him was wrong not to have found Mr. Parry and Mr. Daniel, Mr. Benjamin and Ms. Lawrence guilty of bad faith and misconduct in the preparation of the list used for the election…’ I went on to say: ‘I have read the original Judgement and I cannot see any evidential reference suggesting that either Mr. Parry or Mr. Daniel had anything to do with the preparation of the lists, or that they knew and approved of what were later found to have been unlawful events’. I then requested that (someone, perhaps) one of our Q C’s point out to the rest of us exactly what passages in the first Judgement (of Lionel Jones) support clearly the findings (of bad faith etc.) against Mr. Parry and Mr. Daniel.
Sadly, the only comment about my article by a QC – Mr. Hobson – on ‘Let’s Talk’ did not mention my query about the lack of evidence in the First Judgement to support bad faith and misconduct. All Mr. Hobson did was to quote me saying: ‘We do not want persons who our Courts have declared to be guilty of bad faith and misfeasance in public life to remain in positions of governmental responsibility, or be nominated for such positions’. I got the impression that Mr. Hobson took this statement to mean that I was saying that Messrs. Parry and Daniel could not run. I was not. I was trying to say delicately and respectfully that if there was no evidence in the First Judgement, then perhaps the Appeal Court has made a mistake – QC’s please help.
Perhaps the Court will, if it so pleases, take the opportunity when it hears Messrs. Parry and Daniel’s application re costs to strike out the bad faith etc. reference. The NRP will hope that it does. It will not want to be surprised by Court prohibitions on or after Nomination Day. They need to know about this potentially serious matter with certainty as early as can be.
My guess is that the 90 day period will be allowed to continue almost to the end. The contenders will run on their records, their plans and their criticisms of their opponents. All I will say now is that NRP will not win because of an oil storage facility, but CCM may lose on account of a dog farm.
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
