PM Spencer VS Sir Watt Q.C

Details

Politics

Thursday, 28 February 2013 02:30

By Nicole Shirley

Antigua St. John's - In the first of two matters between the Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer and Sir Gerald Watt Q.C. before the Court of Appeal, a submission was made by Attorney for the Government Sanjeev Datadin that the lower court had erred by ascribing to the legislation, words which were not there; adding that to insert words leads to a change in the meaning of the People’s Amendment Act of 2001; which he said was the core issue.

In the first case addressed, the Prime Minister, being the Appellant sought to have a decision made in the lower court overturned. It was one which deemed the removal of Gerald Watt as Electoral Commissioner null and void.

It was said that the trial judge in that matter expressed concern over the Prime Minister’s failure to give reason for Watts’ dismissal; adding that he had a duty to disclose it; hence the judgement to overturn his decision.

Sanjeev Datadin who appeared on the Appellant’s behalf told the Court that the People’s Amendment Act of 2001 does not make provision for the Chief Minister to give reasons for his actions. He said that it was through conscience that the decision was made to appoint Gerald Watt as Chairman of the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC) and he also had that right to dis-appoint him without interviewing or consulting with anyone.

He also told the Court that the composition of the commission was the joint effort of both the ruling and opposition party; adding that the ruling administration chose three candidates, including the Chairman, whilst the opposition would select two members; one of whom would serve as Deputy Chairman.

Datadin also suggested that the Governor General is amenable to the Court and should have been made part of the proceedings since the operative removal was as a result of her act.

As the Government’s attorney continued he added that the Prime Minister had lost confidence in the Chairman when the recommendation was made to have him removed; and said during the high court trial, without the presence of a proper party; no binding order should have been made; referring to the non-appearance of the Governor General.  

Dr David Dorsette who appeared on Watts’ behalf said the Governor General was in fact represented; adding that whenever matters are litigated against her, the Attorney General is named as the defendant. He said in essence it’s her court, since she represents the Queen; and would have suffered indignity were she to physically appear.

Dorsette also said that the People’s Amendment Act of 2001 which is the subject matter of the case, has been amended on several occasions; adding that it was the legality of the removal of the Chairman which concerned the trial judge in the high court.

In the second case, Gerald Watts was the Appellant; and was seeking to have a decision made by the Prime Minister in Jan. 2012 nullified. Justice Remmy handed down judgement on Jan.25, 2012 and six days later an order was signed by the Prime Minister to nullify the ruling of the judge.

Dorsette contended that the Prime Minister was aggrieved with the decision and demonstrated abuse of power by his actions. One of the judges on the panel told him it was not improper for the Chief Minister to have acted the way he did, since he was delegated by Parliament to so do.

Meanwhile Datadin argued that nothing was untoward about the Prime Minister’s actions; adding that Parliament has the right to make any law it sees fit.

Further to that he said, the Appellant was attempting to question the validity of a Parliamentary Act; adding that it was debated before it was passed and neither party had issues with it.

He also told the court that the Act was instituted to abolish the then commission.

Upon hearing the submissions of both counsels the court reserved its decision; adding that the date of delivery will be announced.   

• < Prev
• Next >