Hearing of three election petitions challenging the results in three constituencies has started here with High Court striking out one and the two others postponed pending clarification by the OECS Court of Appeal.
The defeated candidates of the main opposition United Workers Party (UWP) are challenging the results of the November 28 general elections last year, where in one instance, the margin of victory was a mere vote.
The party is challenging the results in northern town of Gros Iset where the difference between the candidates was seven votes and in the Babonneau constituency, where the St. Lucia Labour Party (SLP) candidate won by one seat.
The petitioners want the Court of Appeal to respond to questions of law related to the rules for elections to Parliament.
The other petition was disallowed because of the non-appearance of former foreign affairs minister Rufus Bousquet who lost his seat Choiseul seat by 50 votes.
Bousquet, who was defeated by the Lorne Theophilius had publically expressed disinterest in the court petition filed on his behalf by the party.
When the matter began on Thursday, he was a no show promoting Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan, who is appearing on behalf of the SLP, to ask the judge to strike the matter out.
But before the judge could have decided on the motion, the UWP legal team led by the Trinidad-based Senior Counsel Reginald Amour left the courtroom suggesting that they too had conceded Bousquet’s position in the matter.
Both Amour and Astaphan invited Justice Wilkinson to make an order for a special case to be prepared for the Court of Appeal regarding the two petitions.
The exact “questions of the law” were not immediately presented to the judge but were expected to be finalized and submitted later on Friday.
The cases will be prepared based on Rule 22 of the House of Assembly Act which directs questions of law in parliamentary matters to the Court of Appeal.
“These questions of the law need to be first heard by the Court of Appeal for the guidance of the High Court, because rule 22 would come into operation. The Judge needed to postpone the two petitions until questions are determined by the Court of Appeal,” Armour said.
Justice Rosalyn Wilkinson obliged saying that the court was prepared to put the agreed questions to the Court of Appeal and to postpone the two petitions.
(Source http://www.antiguaobserver.com/?p=72593)
