Skip to main content

Holness’ Appeal Dismissed



                                      Summary of Interesting Highlights

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of the Leader of Opposition in the House Of Representatives. Andrew Holness was seeking a reversal of the order of the Full Court ( Daye, McDonald Bishop and Batts JJJ) made on 6 February 2015.

By that order, it was declared that:

“1   ….the request for and procurement of pre-signed and undated letters of
resignation and letters of authorization by the Leader of the Opposition from persons to be appointed as Senators to the Senate of Jamaica, upon his nomination, is inconsistent with the constitution, contrary to public policy, unlawful, and is, accordingly null and void .

 2   ….the pre-signed and undated letters of resignation and letters of authorization, as well as the manner of their use to effect the resignation of Senators (  the claimant in particular ) from the Senate of Jamaica, are inconsistent with the Constitution, contrary to public policy and are, accordingly, null and void”.


Some 16 grounds of appeal were filed.

The Panel comprised of Panton (P), Dukharan (JA) and Brooks (JA) and is listed as Supreme Court Civil Appeal No 22/2015 delivered on 25 March 2015.

Panton (P):

[44]   It is my view, therefore, that the Full Court was correct in ruling that the letters of resignation were inconsistent with the Constitution, and so null and void. The legal and constitutional position is that the respondent and Dr Tufton did not resign. They are therefore entitled to retake their positions in the Senate.

Brooks (JA):
[125]    The Full Court was correct in finding that the demand for pre-signed letters of resignation was unconstitutional and invalid. Similarly the use of those letters without the consent of the persons who had signed them was also invalid. Consequently, the letters of resignation that were delivered to the Governor-General by Mr Holness in respect of Mr Williams were invalid and ineffective. The appeal by Mr Holness should be dismissed.

Dukharan (JA):

[47]     I have read in draft the judgements of the learned President and my brother Brooks JA and agree with their reasoning and conclusions. I have nothing to add. 

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well there we go. As I said in a previous comment, the talking points about Senators crossing the floor is nonsense since the constitution does not recognize political parties. Just as the Court of Appeal said. Too often though in Jamaica the debate is blinded by the narrow field of what pertains today as opposed to what is actually allowed for and possible under the constitution. The JLP so far (and to a lesser extent the PNP) is lucky that there hasn't been a proper third party or movement for the election of independent Representatives. In many other countries the JLP would have become a minor party with support having been switched to a third or fourth party or parties by now. Perhaps this sense of security as being practically the ONLY alternative to the PNP in the absence of other parties is what drives the JLP to be so delusional in its outlook - it believes it can still have a good chance at winning despite being fractious and playing fast and loose with its own rules and the country's laws. No competition other than the PNP. If there was sufficient competition though not just for the chance to become government but simply to be the official Opposition or even to have a seat in parliament, then perhaps the JLP would quickly pull itself together or become extinct.
March 31, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Declaration" Not "Determination"

Both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have conveniently confused calls for declaration of citizenship status by Members of either House with the determination of questions as to membership of either House. The Chief Justice of Jamaica has determined that individuals who have renewed their US passports and travelled thereon are disqualified from being validly elected or appointed as a Member of either House. Proponents of the impotence of the Speaker, in the matter of requiring a declaration by individual members, have sought to rely on Section 44 (1) of the Constitution which states: Any question whether - a. any person has been validly elected or appointed as a member of either House; or b. any member of either House has vacated his seat therein or is required, under the provisions of subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 41 of this Constitution, to cease to exercise any of his functions as a member, shall be determined by the Supreme Court ...
3 comments
Read more

By-Election Predisposition

Introduction A massive amount of time and resources have been devoted to the issue of the course to be properly taken once a victorious electoral candidate has been found to be "disqualified" under S. 40 of the Constitution of Jamaica. Simply put, the crux of the matter is whether the second place candidate should, without more, be accorded the seat by the court; or that the said election be deemed null and void and a by-election ordered to decide the people's representative. This matter consumed inordinate amounts of energy - judicial and otherwise - due primarily to the silence of the Constitution on what recourse should be adopted in such circumstance. A cardinal tenet of democratic government is that the people must decide their representatives and not a select grouping - no matter their qualification or status. The Constitution of Jamaica fully recognized this imperative even though it expressly delegates the determination of questions as to membership of either Ho...
4 comments
Read more

Communication Error!

Jamaica Gleaner Contributor, Martin Henry has written an interesting article entitled “Victory for the rule of law” published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 . In his last paragraph Henry stated: " A troubled citizen's concerns about the legitimacy of laws passed in the past with the participation of MPs who may have been in Daryl Vaz's dual-allegiance position was published as The Letter of the Day by The Gleaner last Wednesday [April 16]. Lawyer Dr Paul Ashley made a great deal out of the same issue when we both appeared on the TV programme Impact on that same day. The Constitution dissolves these fears in the wisely anticipatory provision of Section 51 (2): "The presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings." Interpreting legal provisions is an exercise fraught with dangers, especially if one is not acquainted with the rules governing interpretation. Without...
2 comments
Read more