BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – COUNSEL for all sides in the case surrounding the Motion of No Confidence appeared before the High Court this morning (Jul. 11) with some anticipating that the matter would be disposed of today…but that was not to be.
Background
The decision of the Speaker of the House of Assembly in not allowing for the tabling of the December 11, 2012 Motion of No Confidence gave rise to court action by the Opposition in the Federal Parliament.
They were urging the Court to make a number of declarations, including that their constitutional right was being infringed by virtue of the fact that the Motion was not being tabled and that it should be heard expeditiously.
Since then, Opposition Member, the Hon. Shawn Richards informed the public that that court action has been withdrawn from the Court and another Motion of No Confidence in the Government and the Prime Minister was filed with the Clerk of the Federal Parliament.
Speaker of the House, the Hon. Curtis Martin however advised his counsel to appear before the Court and make a case for continuance of the matter.
For and against
One of the lawyers for the claimants – Vincent Byron – in an interview with the media following the in-chamber court session – explained that the respondents filed an application to have their notice of discontinuance set aside, which is yet to be heard.
Byron said he saw this latest move as utter nonsense.
“… regarding our notice of discontinuance, the legal position is that there is no matter before the Court as far as the claimants are concerned. That’s very clear. The Speaker has an application to set aside our discontinuance. That has not been heard; that has been put off. The judge has made directions to hear that. In the meantime, what has happened is that our Notice of Discontinuance takes effect.
“But there is no matter, there is no claim by those of us in the Court, there is none on our part… there is no claim on our part in the Court. He cannot talk out of two sides of his mouth. He’s talking hot and cold, you can’t approbate and reprobate. One the one hand, he says it is in the Court so he can’t do anything. We take it out and he says, ‘No…leave it in the Court.’ We say that is utter nonsense and, the Speaker, I think, has erred. And very clearly, as far as we are concerned, the legal position is that there is no matter before the Court on our part. The Speaker now has gone to the Court when he has already said that the Court can’t tell him anything, cannot compel him to do anything…”
Sylvester Anthony, a member of the counsel team for the respondents, paints a very different picture. According to his argument, discontinuance of the matter is not as simple as it may seem, especially in light of the fact that the respondents are asking the Court to make certain declarations, including that it does not have jurisdiction over the National Assembly.
“Our position is that there are a number of issues of public importance which the Court must determine as it relates to the duties and functions of the Speaker in the conduct of Parliament…
“We say the Court does not have jurisdiction, they say the Court does. That is why they brought the application. And, therefore, we are saying that the Court must decide which one of us is correct. Simply withdrawing the matter does not deal with it. They have not agreed to a dismissal of the matter. They could have agreed to the Court entering a judgment against them and with us, in which case the matter would have been concluded.”
Anthony noted that earlier in the year the respondents had filed an application before the Court to strike out the claimants’ motion. He said included in that application was a request for declarative relief from the Court, including that it has no jurisdiction over the House of Assembly.
“They thought that by filing a notice of discontinuance it would have brought an end to the matter, but they did not think long and hard enough. Because, had they thought long and hard enough, they would recognise that our application was not just to strike the Motion but also sought certain declarations. And, therefore, even if they wish to discontinue their matter, there is still the matter of the declarations that we applied for in our application to strike.”
Both sides are expected to file the relevant documentation and submissions and respond accordingly, but a date for a further hearing would be set sometime in the future.
