BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - FOLLOWING a little over two hours of deliberation in Chamber at the Basseterre High Court today (Sept. 20), the hearing for the boundaries change injunction filed by the Opposition, under the Unity Party umbrella, was adjourned to next Friday (Sept. 27) as counsel for the Claimants and Applicants were asked to file submissions on the injunction discharge matter.
The media learnt that Justice Darshan Ramdhani denied an application filed by the claimants to adjourn the case because of a scheduled conflict for its lead counsel Douglas Mendes of Trinidad.
Additionally, arguments to strike out the injunction which seeks to bar the Governor General Sir Edmund Lawrence from affixing his signature(s) on boundaries change recommendations that were agreed upon recently in Parliament was heard by the Judge as Claimants call for a judicial review to be conducted.
Members of the public and local media workers were present at the High Court this morning as members of both parties exited the Chamber shortly after 12 noon.
Those observed for the Claimants’ team were Mendes’ colleague Michael Quamina; Leader of the People’s Labour (PLP), Dr. Timothy Harris and his Deputy Sam Condor; Leader of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) and his Deputy Eugene Hamilton; and Senator Vincent Byron; while members of the Applicants’ team seen were counsel for the Applicants, Sylvester Anthony; and Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, Peter Jenkins.
Harris and Anthony spoke to the media after the in-Chamber discussions and both had contrasting conclusions on the adjourned matter, with Harris claiming “victory of sort” and Anthony calling it a “useful exercise”.
As understood from Anthony, Applicants for the discharge of the injunctions would file submissions by Monday (Sept. 23) while the other side (Claimants) would respond two days after and the hearing would be on Friday (Sept. 27).
He saw the one-week delay as a useful exercise carried out.
“This is just as quickly as we can move the process. The matter is before the Court and, as the judge has indicated, the arguments are substantive and he needs to make sure that he fully and properly considers it…and we think that is a useful exercise.”
Anthony explained that “the application for adjournment was denied and then we proceeded then to discuss the issues in terms of the application for the discharge for the injunction. His Lordship was of the view that the arguments were rather substantive and therefore the Court would have needed to get formal submissions from all the parties in order for it to fully consider the applications. So we have agreed on a schedule, a pretty expedited schedule, so that submissions and any further affidavits will have to be filed by Wednesday of next week and then we will meet the following Friday to make the formal arguments and then, depending on His Lordship’s decision at that point, that is, whether or not the injunction is discharged”.
He continued: “If, for example, the injunction were not to be discharged, then we would proceed with the application for leave to seek judicial review which has been filed by the Claimants. So, in anticipation of that, we have undertaken to make certain filings so that we would be able to proceed in whichever way the Court rules after it has heard the arguments in relation to the discharge of the injunction.”
Anthony highlighted that the judge, first of all, considered the application for adjournment.
“That he (Judge) ruled against and then we proceeded with the application to strike out… to set aside having heard the arguments at least on one of the sides…our side. The Court decided that it needed to have them in a more formal way because nothing had been filed of course because we were not sure how we were going to proceed in relation to application for adjournment”.
Meanwhile, Harris outlined his team’s objective.
“We went to the Court today, by and large, to ask the Court to give us an opportunity to have our lead counsel Mr. Mendes, who is an expert on Constitutional matter, that he be given the opportunity to present our case and that the Government’s side which went at large tried to see if they could have the injunction discharged…that that matter should not be allowed given the public interest in this particular matter before the Court.”
He shared that his team was very happy and pleased about the outcome.
“We are very happy and very pleased because at the end of the day we can say to you that our senior counsel will have an opportunity in another week, so to speak, to come and make the presentation which we wanted him as the lawyer of our choice to be able to do on our behalf. And, secondly, the injunction which is critically important…that still remains, and so this has been a victory of sort for the people of St. Kitts and Nevis.”
Harris said the matters before the Court are complex and the Court has allowed more time to hear more on the issue with the adjournment.
“The matters are very complex and weighty matters that had been put before the Court and, the Court, in my understanding of the ruling, has allowed itself an opportunity to hear more substance in relation to these matters. So we’re back to court next week Friday, as I understand it, for further discussion of these complex matters.”
