|
| Essentials • This Week's Paper • Advertise • More Sections: editorial | politics | columnists | letters |
|
| Top News > local |
|
 |
7/24/2010 An application to strike out the election petition case of the defeated PAM leader, Lindsay Grant was heard here at the High Court in Basseterre on Wednesday and Thursday of this week by Madame Justice Hari Prasad Charles. Mr. Grant is challenging the results of the January 25th 2010 General Elections, where he lost by 29 votes to new-comer Mr. Glenn Phillip of the ruling St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party. And he’s alleging, among other things, bribery, cheating and other Polling Day irregularities. Mr. Phillip was represented by Dr. Henry Browne; while Senior Counsel, Mr. Anthony Astaphan (of Dominica) appeared on behalf of the Supervisor of the Elections and all other respondents in the case. They were assisted by Mr. Andranauth Gossai of the Government’s Legal Department. Arguments for and against the application concluded late yesterday afternoon. Mr. Grant was represented by local lawyer Mr. Terence Byron, who was assisted by Mr. Vincent Byron Jnr (his brother). In his opening arguments, Dr. Henry Browne, appealed to the courts to strike out the petition because of lack of specific references and evidence in the allegations of fraud and bribery. He referred to the charges of the petitioner, Mr. Grant, as being still-born and infirm and that no cure can give it life. Dr. Browne went on to list what he called fatalities of the charges of Mr. Grant. The first of such fatalities he said was the failure of the petitioner to specify the year, month or day the alleged act or bribery took place. The second fatality he listed was the failure to indicate in the allegation where the bribery took place. According to Dr. Browne there is nothing to suggest in the petition that bribery took place within the geographical location of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. The petition made reference to those who were flown in from abroad to vote and thus the argument of the respondents was whether these persons were bribed overseas or within the Federation and whether proof exists that they were bribed. Dr. Browne also dismissed the allegation that the leader of the Labour Party, Dr. the Hon. Denzil Douglas, was an agent of Mr. Phillip in bribery. The petition, Dr. Browne argued, referred to prominent members of the Labour Party in the allegations of bribery, but it did not state who these prominent members were. Dr. Browne added that the allegations did not state what was the nature of the bribery arrangement, whether it was oral or if it was in writing, how much was paid, when was it paid, and where. He emphasized that paying for transportation of these various persons that came from overseas to vote did not constitute as corrupt practices or was against the National Assemblies Elections Act as the petitioner is claiming. Speculative allegations, he said, should not be given the chance to support any evidence of bribery or fraud. What also stood out in Dr. Browne’s arguments on Wednesday morning was what he deemed the attack on Mr. Phillips’ wife. Dr. Browne read segments of the petition where it stated that the respondent’s wife was guilty of the illegal practice of inducing or procuring several persons to vote knowing that these persons were prohibited by the provisions of section 103 of the National Assemblies Act. In other words, Dr. Browne was saying that the petitioner was accusing Mrs. Phillip of stealing votes for her husband. Dr. Browne contends that the arguments in the petition by the defeated People’s Action Movement (PAM), Leader, “are incurably bad and totally uncorrectable at this stage.” He made the comment on Wednesday at the end of day one of a hearing at which he and the Mr. Anthony Astaphan, S.C. and Mr. Andranauth Gossai, are seeking to have the petition struck out before the matter goes to a full hearing. “We have issued a pre-emptive strike to knock the petition out. That is what this issue at bar is about,” said Browne. He said several accusations are of limited scope and each lack specificity to the extent that the allegations are so vague against my client. “There is no way that he can begin to understand what he has to answer and there is a fundamental precept of any charge against the man which exposes him to prison or any other like punishment must be pleaded with a specificity that it leaves no doubt in the mind of the client as to what his answer should be. He has to frame his defence based on the allegations made against him. For example, you cannot say diverse persons from various countries were bribed to come into St. Kitts and Nevis in order to vote for him to prevent Mr. (Lindsay) Grant from winning, there is really no basis for this scurrilous charge,” said Dr. Browne. He pointed out however, that in the unlikely event that the learned judge does not agree with the entire argument, the respondents have a second strike to look at the evidence to see if the evidence connects with the allegations in the petition. Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan said he was happy with the written and oral submissions by himself and Dr. Browne Wednesday and looked forward to the response by Mr. Grant’s lawyer, Mr. Terrence Byron on Thursday. Mr. Astaphan described as nonsense Mr. Grant’s allegation of collusion between the lawyers representing the respondents. “That I thought is nonsense and I think that they appreciate it is nonsense, that was just being political. They were trying as usual to taint the relationship between myself and Dr. Browne and were trying to show that it is all part of a conspiracy of all parts of the government and the State to corrupt the election process. In my view it is just to state the obvious that such an allegation is totally, totally, nonsensical and absurd to suggest that there is collusion on my part or Dr. Browne’s part or anyone’s part in relation to the preparation of this case. We are professionals,” said Mr. Astaphan. He said there were allegations made against all of the respondents and there was an obligation as officers of the Court to meet and discuss the matter and agree on other matters.” Judgment has been reserved in the case to a later date. The learned trial judge is expected to hear the matter brought by former M.P for Constituency 8, Mr. Cedric Liburd, against Mr. Eugene Hamilton beginning today (Friday 24th July). |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contact
Us | Privacy
Policy ©
2008 The Labour Spokesman