newsday.co.tt Jack Warner - ILP loses appeal on Runoff Bill By Sean Douglas Tuesday, November 11 2014 THE Appeal Court yesterday rejected the Independent Liberal Party (ILP’s) challenge to the Government’s Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 by which general elections will include a runoff ballot, but ILP PRO, Danan Singh, immediately vowed to appeal further to the Privy Council “to protect the rights of citizens”. Attorney General (AG) Anand Ramlogan stood for the State while ILP chairman, attorney Rekha Ramjit stood for the appellants. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar opened debate on the bill in the House of Representatives on August 11. The House passed the bill with amendments on August 12 with 23 MPs voting for the bill, 14 voting against it and one MP abstaining. ILP political leader Jack Warner, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Dookeran and Public Administration Minister Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan were amongst the 14 MPs voting against the bill. Persad-Bissessar allowed MPs to take a conscience vote on the bill. The Senate began debate on the bill on Augiust 19 and passed it with further amendments on August 28. Government has a motion on the House Order Paper to approve these amendments. No date has been set for debate on this motion which requires a simple majority for passage. Once approved, the bill goes to the President for his assent and proclamation into law. Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Gregory Smith and Prakash Moosai rejected an appeal by the ILP’s Stephen Mitchell and Dayne Francois against a High Court ruling against them by Justice Frank Seepersad last October, with costs. The duo had argued that the bill violates their rights respectively as a potential candidate and a potential elector in a general election by changing the voting system. Ramlogan, at a news briefing at his Cabildo Chambers office in Port-of-Spain, said the Appeal Court had dismissed the appellants claim as “premature, speculative, hypothetical and academic”. He said the court had dismissed the appeal as weak, as Mitchell is not yet a candidate and even if he was, there is no guarantee anyone would vote for him, nor whether a run-off would be required. Ramlogan said the court had declined to intrude on Parliament’s right to pass laws, and had ruled it is improper for the court to grant pre-emptive relief to influence the outcome of debate/legislation, or to violate an MP’s constitutional right to freedom of expression. Ramlogan said the court had dismissed Ramjit’s fears that if the bill is passed, her client won’t have enough time to challenge it before the next general election. He said the court said the bill does not violate any basic constitutional right, claiming that if a person can vote in two rounds this amounts to more democracy. Asked if it was fair for private persons to have to pay State costs for having contested changes to the Constitution, Ramlogan said no-one had offered to pay his costs in the constitutional cases he had fought as a private attorney. He explained it was for the court to determine legal costs, the interest of tax-payers must be balanced, and that he has not yet given any thought to the idea of the State paying its own legal costs. Ramjit told Newsday that often past cases have seen the Privy Council reverse the previous rulings of the High Court and Appeal Court. She said the Appeal Court had ruled she had not proven the case had “exceptional circumstances” that require the court be allowed to interfere in the law-making process in Parliament before the bill’s enactment is completed. Rekha insisted if the bill is not challenged in court now, there will not be enough time to challenge it after it becomes the law. With the election due by September 2015, Rekha said some six to eight months will be needed to challenge the law/Act in High Court, Appeal Court and Privy Council. She bemoaned that even if she eventually succeeded in challenging the law/Act, any court victory could not be applied retroactively so as to cancel or annul the election results. Regarding legal costs so far, she said Ramlogan must submit his estimate to which she would respond, with the court making the determination. © newsday.co.tt - newsday.co.tt
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:51:24 +0000