Vin pages 26 10 17 e reader for web ilovepdf compressed

Page 1

THURSDAY,

OCTOBER 26, 2017

VOLUME 111, No.43

www.thevincentian.com

EC$1.50

ELECTION PETITIONS:

ANOTHER SETBACK Stanley ‘Stalky’ John QC, , lead Counsel for the petitioners, rejected the supposed agreement that only four ballot boxes would be inspected. by DAYLE DA SILVA LEGAL COUNSEL for the petitioners and respondents in a matter of Election Petitions before the Court, were instructed to decide upon a date for the court to proceed with a motion filed for the inspection of ballot boxes, this after legal counsel for the petitioners rejected a draft consent order. “I suggest that parties consult among themselves and indicate to the Registrar, dates in the month of December to January 2018,” Justice Esco Henry ruled last Wednesday.

Douglas Mendes SC was surprised and unprepared for the petitioners’ rejection of what he accepted to be a consent order agreed to by both parties.

commencing at 9:30 a.m., and supposedly agreed to by both parties, was rejected by counsel for the petitions. Stanley ‘Stalky’ John QC, representing the petitioners, indicated to the court that his side objected to the conditions as outlined in the draft consent order, on aspects of the inspection process. One of the objections cited was that the consent order made provisions for the inspection of only four of the 15 ballot boxes used in the December 2015 General Elections in the constituency of Central Leeward. On Tuesday, Kenny Kentish of the respondents’ legal team, read out in court, the details of the consent order, stating that an agreement had been reached by both parties for the inspection of unused ballot papers in polling stations CLF, CLF1, CLE and CLE1 only. John, however, told the court that they were seeking to inspect all 15 ballot boxes and the used ballots in the four mentioned. Kay Bacchus-Baptiste, also a member of the petitioners’ legal team, added that the petitioners were seeking recorded evidence, for example photographs of the inspected documents.

Justice Esco Henry gave a time frame from which a date to hear the motion for inspection of the ballot boxes should be decided upon.

Kentish added that there seemed to be an attempt by the petitioners to alter the draft consent order that had been agreed upon by both sides. However, Bacchus-Baptiste indicated that the charges being made This means that the Opposition by legal counsel from the respondents New Democratic Party (NDP) were not true; that the petitioners candidates who filed the petitions — Respondents Object were not attempting to alter the draft Benjamin Exeter and Lauron Baptiste consent order; but that the comments — have suffered another setback as But Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and recommendations submitted spoke they seek justice for alleged wrongrepresenting the respondents, objected, to the execution of the consent order. doings at the hands of the Electoral saying that the terms and conditions This prompted Justice Henry to Office, in the 2015 General Elections. outlined by the petitioners resembled convene a break in which she an earlier draft order which he had instructed both legal teams to examine Consent order rejected rejected. the draft consent order and for them to “The amendments sound similar to discuss and indicate how much time The decision to grant an what was proposed but that was they required to come up with an adjournment came after the draft rejected…what is being done is they agreed consent order. consent order setting out parameters are trying to introduce from the back for the inspection process to take place door another order,” Mendes SC said. Continued on Page 3.Continued from on Wednesday, October 25


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.