| Stougumber Browne Admits ‘Election Process is Not Perfect’ |
| By Joy Napier |
| |
|
|
|
Dr. Henry Stougumber Browne |
|
|
|
|
| |
Jan. 31 -- Dr. Henry Stougumber Browne told the court on Friday that the election process is not perfect, however the presiding judge should direct his focus elsewhere.
Friday, 27th January marked the 8th and final day in the much talked about NIA Election Petition trial. The court heard briefly from Dr. Henry Stougumber Browne, counsel for the first respondent, Hon. Hensley Daniel.
In his closing remarks, which lasted for just over and hour and a half, Dr. Browne introduced several new angles to the case of the respondents, as well as disputed select submissions made by SC for the Petitioner, Douglas Mendes in his closing arguments on Wednesday (Jan. 25) .
Browne’s general line of reasoning invited the Court to closely examine the Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis. With reference to constitutional law, Dr. Browne alleged that the Petitioner, CCM’s Deputy Leader, Hon. Mark Brantley, had in fact brought a certain amount of his pleadings, as outlined in the petition, before the wrong court.
“You cannot approach the threshold of the elections court with an election petition and then tack onto it allegations of contraventions of constitutional rights,” he said.
Dr. Browne went on to argue that according to his interpretation of the constitution, the Elections court and its presiding Justice did not have jurisdiction to hear pleadings of a breach of Brantley’s constitutional rights – namely a denial of his right to freedom of expression. This was in response to the portion of Brantley’s petition which spoke to the alleged absence of equal access to the state-owned TV station.
Dr. Browne also argued that the Petition itself had undergone several changes and amendments, which in fact changed its meaning.
He also contended that under his legal understanding, if an elector’s name is taken off the voting list, the matter cannot be brought to an election court unless a direct plea of bad faith on the part of the officer who removed the name is submitted.
“The election process is not perfect, but we are not here to dwell on its imperfections. We are here to apply the law,” he said as an explanation as to why he devoted such close attention to the Acts of the Constitution.
At the end of the day’s session, His Lordship Justice Jones ordered than all written submissions must be received no later than February 10, 2012. |
