| Brantley’s Lead Counsel Presents Closing Arguments |
| By Joy Napier |
| |
|
|
|
Douglas Mendes |
|
|
|
|
| |
Jan. 25 -- Day seven of the Election Petition Case saw Hon. Mark Brantley's Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes present a significant section of his closing arguments.
Making reference to both case and constitutional law, Mendes began by establishing the obligations of the legislature with regards to the right of universal franchise. "Legislation must be interpreted in a way that will promote enfranchisement," stated Mendes.
The first issue addressed was the question of equal access to the state-controlled television station - Channel 8. Relating back to evidence given by Permanent Secretary in the Premier's Ministry, Mendes pointed out that Ministry policy during the time of the contested elections was to cover only NRP campaign activities, including rallies and speeches. He posited that this translated to a "misuse of public funds to promote a private political party". While not a deciding factor in election results, Mendes argued that slanted TV coverage may have played a great role in an election with such a close-margin win. Mendes placed the onus directly on the shoulders of Premier Joseph Parry, under whose Ministry Channel 8 jurisdiction falls.
The next issue raised was the publication of a "revised Voters Registration List" reflecting any objections made to the January 2011 ‘master’ list. Referring throughout to Articles in the National Assemblies Act, and in The Constitution, Mendes stressed the importance of "publication" of revised voters list to reflect latest objections, additions, removals and other amendments. It was suggested that, given the time-line allowed according to law, a revised voters list should have been compiled and published by the end of March 2011. The initial list must be published by January 31st, all objections made within ten days, and the revised list published by March 31st. Mendes submitted that a list was neither prepared, nor published. According to Mendes, the onus falls upon the Supervisor of Elections, Leroy Benjamin Sr., who is also the Chief Registration Officer.
Mendes put to Justice Lionel Jones that the fact that 203 people were “taken off the July list, even though registered to vote in January was caused by the incompetence and failure of election officials to do their job".
The late sending of objection notices to many of the 203 people was the next issue on Mendes' agenda. Bernadette Lawrence, Registration Officer, came under fire in this submission. With Objections being lodged by February 10th, and the last hearings falling in July, Mendes charged, "Ms. Lawrence simply did not approach this issue with any laxity at all. She was laissez-faire." He also pointed out that the issue of Ms. Lawrence's obligations to her other job should not result in a negative impact on the objectees.
With regard late objection notices, SC Mendes highlighted Lawrence's staunch position that, by taking (most) of the notices to the Post Office within the requisite 5 days, she was fulfilling her legal duty. However, as was pointed out in Lawrence's earlier testimony, by reference to a posting list issued from the Post Office, and as Mendes highlighted today, in 114 cases there was “absolutely clear evidence, and knowledge on the part of Ms. Lawrence that the objectees could not have possibly received” the legally required notice of their hearing dates.
As the session broke for lunch Mendes left off his arguments on the technical and legal interpretations of the terms "sent" and "received". He indicated to His Lordship Justice Jones that his concluding arguments will not go beyond today. |
