BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - THE motion brought against the appointment of the new Attorney-General, Jason Hamilton, continued yesterday (Feb. 18) with the Court hearing arguments from counsel on both sides.
Nevis’ Resident Judge Justice John Benjamin first heard from the claimants’ counsel after which counsels for the respondents presented their arguments.
Douglas Mendes S.C., lead counsel for claimants Hon. Shawn Richards an Hon. Sam Condor, argued that Hamilton’s appointment as a fourth Senator in the House of Assembly is a breach of the Constitution.
He also sought to determine whether Hamilton should have been allowed to vote on the recently passed Senators (Increase of Number) Bill, which was being debated when he was sworn in and would not have been passed had it not been for his tie-breaker vote.
Mendes argued that the procedure through which Hamilton was appointed was not only unconstitutional but “unlawful, null and void”, noting that Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas erred in advising the Governor-General to appointment Hamilton.
He also argued that the Governor-General erred in acting in accordance to the Prime Minister's advice, stating that he should have told Dr. Douglas that his request was unlawful, as he is not obliged to act on illegal advice.
Mendes further argued that the appointment of the Attorney-General as a fourth Senator and a Government Minister were a breach of the Constitution which makes provision for three Senators and states that a Minister could only be chosen from a Member of Parliament.
He stated that given the fact that there were already three Senators and Hamilton was not an existing Member of Parliament, his appointment should not have been granted.
Mendes said that the Prime Minister could have appointed an existing Senator as Attorney-General or remove one of his three Senators and appointed Hamilton as one, which would have allowed for the addition of a fourth Senator.
He further said that if the Prime Minister wished, he could have brought back the Senator he removed as the fourth Senator.
The Senior Counsel for the claimants affirmed that the passage of the Senators Bill should also be deemed null and void, for had it not been for Hamilton’s illegal vote the Bill would have failed with a seven-seven tie.
Responding to the claimants were Dr. Henry Browne Q. C., Delano Bart Q.C. and Anthony Johnson who argued that Hamilton's appointment as a Minister was lawful because the Attorney-General Act 2000 allowed for him, as Attorney-General, to be made a Minister.
They also argued that his appointment as a Senator did not breach the Constitution because the law made provision for a fourth Senator to be appointed in the event that one was the Attorney-General.
They also argued that the disappointing of an existing Senator to appoint another and then reappointing the removed Senator made no sense.
The Constitution states that if a Senator is appointed Attorney-General the number of Senators could be increased by one. Mendes however argued that that provision only allowed for the increase if an existing Member of Parliament was appointed Attorney-General, which Hamilton was not.
The case winded down with the request for time to make final submissions.
Counsel on both sides had been filing submissions since last Thursday, some of which were not received up until Court time.
They were however given until Wednesday to file their final necessary submissions.
The Motion challenging the appointment of Attorney-General Jason Hamilton as Senator in the National Assembly is expected to continue following the final filing of submissions.
