LAW
AND POLITICS
BY
LLOYD
NOEL
In
the Grenadian Voice of Saturday Fourth March, the “Personally
Speaking”, writer purported to describe Mr. Hugh Wildman’s
behaviour, as the “arrogance of the able”, and he went
on to state, that none of his (Wildman) detractors have been able
to argue against his ability.
Knowing that writer personally for many years, and having shared
some unforgettable experiences with him in very trying circumstances
- I wish he was present in the No. 2 High Court last week Friday,
to have listened to the “Cabinet Special Legal Advisor”,
in the hearing of the case involving the Attorney General and Mr.
Peter David, in the matter touching and concerning Peter’s
qualification to sit in Parliament.
I feel almost certain, that writer would definitely have revised
or re-phrased his statements quoted above, in light of the undoubted
arrogance displayed - but very clearly without the ability the writer
had claimed.
Readers would recall, that since about October/November last year
Mr. Wildman was the Government’s spokesman - on the issue
of Peter David’s qualification to have contested the seat
in Parliament for the Town of St. George’s.
His
position was - that although the Constitution of Grenada (in Section
30) states or lays down very clearly, that as far as Citizenship
is concerned - to qualify to be nominated, one has to be a Commonwealth
Citizen who has resided in Grenada for twelve months before the
date of his/her nomination, or domiciled in Grenada and resident
here on the date of his/her nomination - Peter David, as a Canadian
as well as a Grenadian Citizen, was not qualified because he owes
allegiance to a Foreign State or Power, viz. Canada; as per Section
31 (1) (a).
That position was maintained, despite the fact that in the Extradition
Act No. 22 of 1998, passed in Parliament by this very NNP Government,
that Act laid down that Canada is a Commonwealth Country and it
is NOT a Foreign State (Section 2 (1) on Interpretation).
On the 16th January, 2006, an ordinary Writ or “Fixed Date
Claim Form” was filed on behalf of the Attorney General, and
the same was signed by the Crown Counsel in the Attorney General’s
department.
The Attorney General was The Claimant and Three Respondents (or
Defendants) were listed as Peter David, Victor Ashby as Supervisor
of Elections, and Brenda Hood as the losing candidate against Peter
David in the November - 2003 General Elections.
Only Peter David entered appearance and was duly represented by
Counsel; no one appeared for or on behalf of Victor Ashby, nor Senator
Brenda Hood, and Hugh Wildman appeared for the Attorney General
with the Crown Counsel.
As soon as the Claim was served on Peter, his Lawyers (Dr. Alexis,
Ruggles Ferguson, Anselm Clouden and Lloyd Noel) - filed an Application
in the Court to have the Claim struck out, because based on that
Claim the Court had no jurisdiction (authority) to hear and determine
the case, which simply said that “Peter David was in Breach
of Section 31 (1) (a) of the Constitution”.
The case for Peter David was based on the very Constitution, which
lays down that any interested person, including the Attorney General,
who is claiming that someone Elected to sit in Parliament - was
not qualified to be nominated and so Elected, because for example,
he was a Citizen of a Foreign State or Power - that interested person
could apply to the High Court to challenge the validity of that
M.P’s Election.
The same Constitution (in Section 37) further lays down, that Parliament
should pass Legislation to say, or regulate, how and in what manner
and time such Application to the High Court can be made.
Parliament, in the Representation of the People’s ACT (RPA)
1993, passed such Legislation in Sections 97 to 100, and named the
procedure an “Election Petition”, with a variety of
rules, limitations and conditions attached thereto.
Needless to say, Mr. Wildman did not use that procedure, for the
very simple and unavoidable reason - that the time for so doing
had passed since 21 or 28 days after the November 27th 2003, General
Elections.
Not to mention, of course, the other insurmountable hurdle that
Peter David is an admittedly Canadian Commonwealth Citizen - as
the Constitution provides. The first question must therefore beg
itself - why did he advise such a course of action?
In addition to the obvious wanton waste of public funds in the whole
exercise - I wish the Personally Speaking writer was present, to
hear Mr. Wildman’s arrogance to the Judge, Mr. Justice Kenneth
Benjamin.
In a nutshell, Mr. Wildman submitted to the Judge, that the Law
made by Parliament in 1993, (the RPA) - that Law was wrong, because
it should not have been made pursuant to Section 37 as the Constitution
laid down, but under Section 32 of the said Constitution, although
that latter Section has nothing to do with M.P’s qualification.
And when the Judge, seemingly in utter disbelief as to what was
being submitted by Mr. Wildman, asked him whether he (the Judge)
should ignore the reference to Section 37 in the RPA, and no doubt
replace it with Section 32, Mr. Wildman replied that he should.
I would not like to repeat some of the comments made by members
of the public present in the Court, but suffice it for me to say
- that the performances of that high-powered Legal Advisor should
definitely be revisited by the Prime Minister - as the Personally
Speaking writer, who clearly has ready access to the Prime Minister’s
attention, has so frankly advised.
I do not know for sure why Mr. Wildman, who has no claim to any
level of Constitutional expertise, was alone in Court representing
the Attorney General - the Crown Counsel was a note-taker. Because
in much less heavier and important matters, he always had a Senior
Counsel leading him.
It could be that he felt capable on his own of dealing with the
four of us mentioned above - even though we have a Constitutional
expert in Dr. Alexis in the team. But as time and his busy case-load
permitted him, we also had Dr. Lloyd Barnet from Jamaica, of worldwide
constitutional renown, leading the team.
So that there was a Guyanese Judge, hearing a case about Grenada’s
Constitution, being argued by two Jamaican Attorneys, in a Grenadian
Court. But that was all those two had in common - their origin.
Everything else pertaining to their manner, and demeanor, and scholarship,
and presentation, and expertise on Regional and International Constitutions
- as well as the humility versus the groundless arrogance being
displayed - was like a Professor admonishing a Primary Schoolboy.
As for the over-tolerant Judge, who had to listen to the same statement
repeated by Mr. Wildman dozens of times - even though he was saying
nothing of any substance - it must have been an ordeal for his patience.
However, it all came to an end after many hours - when the Judge
said that Judgment was reserved to a date to be advised. Then later
that evening in the GBN News, I heard Mr. Wildman saying that he
had presented a strong case on behalf of the Attorney General -
to prove that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case,
that Peter David was not validly elected to hold the Seat for the
Town of St. George’s in the Lower House of Parliament. I supposed
stranger things have happened in these never-dull-Isles, so we have
to wait on the Judgment.
We now have the case by Hon. Tillman Thomas, against the One-man
Commissioner in the “Brief Case” Inquiry, awaiting a
decision; as well as the case by Mr. Hugh Wildman, against the (JLSC)
Judicial and Legal Services Commission for refusing to recommend
him as Attorney General; and this latest matter, all involving the
Government in some way or another and all awaiting decisions from
our High Court.
On the more strictly political front - Parliament dealt with the
revised (NRL) National Reconstruction Levy last week, to reduce
it from 5% to 3% for all times.And
we await the next Sitting of the Upper House or Senate, when the
new Senator who is nominated as the next President thereof will
be elected; i.e. Mr. Kenny Lalsingh.
In the meantime, although we have heard nothing from Government
for some months now, about the PetroCarib proposals from Venezuela
- I heard the Minister responsible for Energy, Hon. Gregory Bowen,
saying last week Friday/Saturday that the Agreement with Venezuela
is due for signing any day
now in St. George’s or Caracas.
At the same time, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr.
Nigel John, has been complaining that the powers-that-be have not
taken the time to advise or inform the public, and the business
community no doubt, with sufficient details about the (CSM) Caribbean
Single Market, and as we have been advised - Grenada and the other
OECS Countries are due to join the CSM
by June 30th 2006.
So many knowledgeable writers on Caribbean affairs, including many
OECS Prime Ministers themselves - have been raising very significant
issues, that are left very loose or just flying as pie in the sky
- with no concrete foundation or organisational procedure for dealing
with them, that I cannot understand why the message is not getting
home.
Those OECS Governments, including our own in Grenada, seem to be
banking on hopes and dreams to see them through - and therefore
behaving as though the many issues being raised by concerned Citizens
are no big thing.
Maybe it is all part and parcel of the groundless arrogance - that
seem to be the trade mark of those who know not but refuse to accept
and face their shortcomings; or those who feel that because they
are the advisers, or the ones who make and enforce the decisions,
then no one should question their
authority for so doing.
Opinions
expressed are those of the author |
|
