BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – COUNSEL for the Federal Parliament’s Opposition and Government Members were before the Basseterre High Court again yesterday (Nov. 8) to further discuss the status of the Motion of No Confidence case which has been lingering since April 2013.
And at the end of the in-chambers proceedings, which were presided over by His Lordship Justice Darshan Ramdhai, a further court date – December 16 – was set for their return with the hope that further progress would be made.
Background
On December 11, 2012, a Motion of No Confidence was filed by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Dr. Denzil L. Douglas-led government.
And after four months without it being placed on the Order Paper for debate in the House, six elected Parliamentarians - constituting the majority of elected Members in the House – took the matter to court asking the judicial body to move the hand of the Parliament into having the MoNC debated within a reasonable time.
Letters were issued between the Speaker of the House and the Opposition about the MoNC, with the former declaring that it would not be tabled as it is before the Court awaiting judicial rule (sub judice). Additionally, papers were filed by the respondents to strike out the originating Motion.
The Opposition then filed a Notice of Discontinuance of the matter with the Court, while simultaneously filing another MoNC with the Federal Parliament.
The Speaker of the House insisted however that the matter not be disposed of as he needed for the Court to make certain declarations, including that it does not have the jurisdiction over the affairs of the Parliament. And to that end, papers - asking the Court to set aside the Opposition’s notice of discontinuance - were filed.
Yesterday
This publication understands that the Opposition told the Court that it would not object to the Government’s call for their Notice of Discontinuance to be set aside.
Once that it set aside, and when next the Court convenes, it would have to determine the issue of the respondent’s application to strike out the originating Motion.
It is also anticipated that the Court would deliberate on whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear the originating Motion and whether or not there is a case to be heard.
Conflicting views
Counsel for the respondents (Government Parliamentarians and Speaker of the House) are of the view that by the petitioners’ decision to agree with the setting aside of their Notice of Discontinuance, they are agreeing to abandon the originating Motion – in that the MoNC should be heard in a reasonable time.
Of course, the petitioners are not in agreement and believe that the substantive matter still has to be dealt with.
Monday, November 11, marks the 11-month anniversary of the filing of the MoNC and it also marks the length of time it has lingered without being debated.
