Svg Green Party Ivan O'neal Claimants v Attorney General The Supervisor of Elections Respondents [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Thom, J |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2005 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2005] ECSC J1118-2 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 420 OF 2005 |
| Date | 18 November 2005 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT
CLAIM NO. 420 OF 2005
The Claimants seek to have Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act which forms part of Section 2 of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2005 No. 4 of 2005 declared unconstitutional, null and void.
The First Claimant the SVG Green Party is a political party in Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines and the Second Claimant Mr. Ivan O'Neal is the Political Leader of the First Claimant.
On January 6, 2005 the Second Respondent wrote to the Second Claimant informing him that there would be a nationwide enumeration of electors in Saint Vincent and theGrenadines commencing on March 15, 2005 and ending on June 15, 2005. The letter outlined the reasons for the exercise to be:
-
(a) To expunge from the Electoral Lists the names of persons who have died and whose names are still on the list.
-
(b) To delete the names of electors who have been absent from Saint Vincent for a period exceeding five (5) years.
-
(c) To ascertain the exact number of electors now residing in this nation.
By this said letter the Supervisor of Elections invited the First Claimant to nominate 187 persons to be the First Claimant's agents for the enumeration exercise.
By letter dated 11th January 2005 the Second Claimant notified the Second Respondent of the willingness of the First Claimant to send the names of the 187 agents to participate in the enumeration exercise and enquired who would pay the wages for the agents.
On the 8th day of February 2005 the Second Respondent wrote to the Second Claimant advising him that only scrutineers appointed by the political parties with membership in Parliament would be paid $400.00. The Second Claimant was reminded to submit the names of the scrutineers of the First Claimant by 14th February 2005 the day when training of enumerators was due to commence.
On February 25, 2005 the Parliament of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2005. This Act was assented to by His Excellency the Governor General on the 1st day of March 2005.
Section 2 of this Act created eight new sections being Sections 10A to 10H. Section 10A makes provision for each political party having an elected member or elected members in the House of Assembly to nominate persons to be appointed as scrutineers. While Section 10F makes provision for scrutineers appointed under Section 10A to receive such remuneration as is determined by the Supervisor of Elections.
The enumeration exercise was conducted between March 15, 2005 and June 15, 2005.
On September 6, 2005 the Claimants filed a claim in which they claimed the following:
-
1. A declaration that section 10A of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as Section 10A) is unconstitutional.
-
2. An order that the Supervisor of Elections do allow the First Claimant to have scrutineers assist in the enumeration process and that such scrutineers be paid by the Supervisor of Elections or the relevant authority.
The Second Claimant swore two affidavits in this matter. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the first affidavit and paragraph 1(g) of the second affidavit.
Paragraph 11 reads as follows:
"The said Act permitted the appointment of scrutineers by Political Parties having an elected member or elected members in the House of Assembly. Reference is made to Section 10 A (1) (3) of the Representation of the People Act No. 4 of 2005."
Paragraph 12 reads as follows:
"The Green Party contends that this section of the Act is discriminatory in that if affects (affords) to the other two Political Parties having elected representatives in Parliament a different kind of treatment as that afforded to his party and the same ought to be declared unconstitutional as being contrary to the Schedule of the Constitution Part 2 Recital (b), and Chapter 1 Fundamental Rights provisions section 13 (1) which provides that no law shall make any provision that is discriminating either of itself or in its effect."
Paragraph 14 reads as follows:
"My party the SVG Green Party is a person under the Constitution and the Law seeks to prohibit my party from taking part in the Election process and is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution as my party has been denied the right of having the opportunity to participate in the process of seeing that persons who are qualified to vote have their names recorded to be included in the List of Voters as well as ensuring that they who have died that their names be removed from the Voters List for the next Parliamentary Election which is constitutionally due next year."
Paragraph 15 reads as follows:
"I intend to contest the next General Elections as a Candidate for the constituency of East St. George the area in which I reside and I am a registered voter for the said Constituency and I am enrolled as a voter having an ID card number SVG 075333 and I have an interest in seeing that persons elected to parliament have been duly elected in accordance with the Representation of the People Act under a procedure which is fair and just to all individuals contesting the said elections as well as any of my candidates contesting on behalf of the SVG Green Party."
The Second Claimant in his second affidavit sworn on October 3, 2005 deposed in
paragraph (1) (g) as follows:
"The SVG Green Party was therefore deprived of participating in the democratic process and by Act No. 4 of 2005 the discrimination is apparent through Section 10A–10H. I have also a certified copy of the Hansard and the Order of the Day Paper which I exhibit as "I.O. 3" to show the purpose and intent behind the said Act."
Attached to the said Affidavit and marked "I.O. 3" is a document entitled "Excerpt of the sitting of the House of Assembly on 28th February 2005 Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2005 Debate." This document bears a stamp of the Department of the Clerk of the House of Assembly and is certified by the Clerk of the House of Assembly. The Court raised the issue whether the document was admissible in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Randolph Toussaint v The Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004. It was agreed by both sides that there was no permission from the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the document could only be admitted pursuant to Section 40 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 158.
Counsel for the Claimants submitted that the document was admissible since it was
certified correct by the Clerk of the House of Assembly. The Court should not interpret Government Printer in Section 40 of the Evidence Act narrowly.
Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Claimants had to satisfy the condition of Section 40 of the Evidence Act before the document could be admitted in evidence. The condition has not been satisfied therefore the document is inadmissible.
Section 40 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
"All documents purporting to be copies of the debate and proceedings of the House of Assembly or of papers presented to the House of Assembly purporting to be printed by the Government Printer, shall on their mere production be admitted as evidence thereof in all courts."
As stated earlier Learned Counsel for the Claimants urged the Court not to give the term "Government Printer" a narrow interpretation. However, the term "Government Printer" is defined in Section 3 (1) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act as follows:
"… means the Government Printer of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and any other printer authorized by, or on behalf of the Governor-General to print any written law or any other document of the Government."
To be admissible under Section 40 of the Evidence Act the document must have been printed by the Government Printer or a printer authorized by or on behalf of the Governor-General.
A document certified by the Clerk of the House of Assembly is not a document printed by the Government Printer nor is it a document printed by a printer authorized by the Governor-General. No evidence was led to the effect that the Clerk of the House of Assembly was a printer authorized by the Governor-General to print any written law or any other documents of the Government.
I find that the document "I.O. 3" does not meet the requirement of Section 40 of the Evidence Act since it is not a document printed by the Government Printer as defined in Section 3(1) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act.
In the event that I am wrong and the document is admissible, I find that it does not advance the Claimants' case since the same arguments that were made during the debate by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition were made by Learned Counsel for the Claimants in his submission.
This claim was brought pursuant to Sections 16 and 96 of the Constitution and Part 56 of CPR 2000. However, during submissions Learned Counsel for the Claimants submitted that the Claimants were relying on Section 16 of the Constitution.
Learned Counsel for the Claimants submitted that Section 10A is unconstitutional in that it is discriminatory both in itself and in its effect.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents in response submitted:
-
(1) That the Claimants have no locus standi. The First Claimant is not an individual; it is not a registered entity as such it can only bring an action by the named trustees of the Party. In support of his proposition counsel referred the Court to Halsbury Laws of England 4th ed Vol. 5 paragraph 271 and London Associates for Protection of Trade and Another v Greenlands...
To continue reading
Request your trial