BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – WITH all that has panned out since the Opposition made its decision to withdraw the Motion of No Confidence (MONC) case from the Court, one wonders if thoughts of regret have flooded their minds and if – in hindsight – a different court of action should have been considered.
On Thursday, July 4, Member of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and Leader of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) the Hon. Shawn K. Richards appeared on Sugar City FM 90.3 and informed the nation that not only had he filed another MONC in the government, but instructions were given to counsel to withdraw the matter surrounding the first MONC from the Court.
And in his address, Richards indicated that – in his view – there is now no impediment preventing the MONC from being tabled and debated in the National Assembly.
The next sitting of Parliament – however – was very telling and saw the Opposition making an attempt to have the Order Paper amended to include the MONC.
Speaker of the National Assembly – in a prepared statement – indicated that while the Court has no jurisdiction over him to dictate the performance of his duties, he is seeking it to rule on whether or not it does have that jurisdiction. And he advised his counsel to attend court on the date it was originally scheduled for hearing (July 8).
It seems now that Richards et al, notwithstanding that instructions were given to have the MONC case withdrawn, are still embroiled in a possibly extended legal battle.
SKNVibes spoke with Richards concerning the revocation of the case and consequences of that action.
Regarding the hefty bill which Richards et al may be called upon to shoulder should the Court not rule in favour of it, Richards said he waits upon the Court and, even if the ruling is not in his favour, there are other options available to him.
He also revealed that in making the decision to withdraw, the cost issue “was one of the factors taken into consideration when the decision was taken.
“The Court would have to determine whether or not any costs are to be awarded to either of the parties. It was a matter that was brought in the public’s interest but, ultimately, that is a matter for the Court to decide. Until the Court makes a determination as to the awarding of costs, I am not in a position to answer that question because, even if the Court makes a decision, that decision can be appealed.”
Though a seemingly uphill struggle, Richards declared that he still stands behind his decision to remove the matter from the arms of the Court.
