| Brantley: Fresh Elections, No Compensation! |
| By Joy Napier |
| |
|
|
|
Hon. Mark Brantley |
|
|
|
|
| |
CCM’s Hon. Mark Brantley says none of the ‘disenfranchised’ voters want any form of compensation, “they want to cast their votes”. The Election Petition trial instigated by Brantley’s legal actions against 9 government and election officials concluded last Friday.
Lead Counsel for the respondents Anthony Astaphan SC introduced the compensation argument during opening submissions. He told Justice Lionel Jones to consider whether or not the conduct of electoral officials and non-publication of voters’ lists warranted the setting aside of the elections or if persons whose names were removed may have an alternative constitutional remedy.
“They could get damages,” Astaphan suggested.
The Observer spoke with Brantley regarding the issue of compensation as an alternative solution to the invalidation of the elections. He said black people in the Caribbean’s right to vote had not been easily won and therefore it was “an insult” to say that people should be disenfranchised and then “a bit of money offered to them”.
“It is a fairly recent phenomenon that we have secured the right to vote, and I think that it is truly sad that the very question has been raised that in 2012, in the 21st century, you are suggesting to the Caribbean people that you can deny them the right to vote and pay them some money.”
Brantley also expressed concern that if compensation or “a little bit of money” is awarded in this case, what would prevent those in authority from disenfranchising voters at will in the future. He also spoke to the issue of compensation coming from the government coffers, which he said, was taxpayers’ money.
“If monetary compensation is awarded it would be the taxpayers’ money going to compensate the very taxpayers themselves who were disenfranchised,” he said.
Brantley told The Observer while he would “accept the Judge’s decision based on our respect for the Judiciary”, he was confident it would be in his favor. A decision in favor of the Petitioner would send a clear message that it could not be “electoral skullduggery as usual” and all parties in the Federation should ensure they protected the integrity of the electoral system as it ultimately “underpins our democracy”, he stated.
He expressed conviction that a bi-election to determine the parliamentary representative for the area in dispute, Constituency #2 (St. Johns), would result in a win for CCM.
“I am confident that there will be a bi-election and once the Judge hands down a decision to that effect then we will get ready for a return to the polls. I think my chances of winning that seat are excellent because when you consider that I lost by 14 votes, let us remember that the NRP brought in four jumbo jets full of supporters, they disenfranchised over 200 of my supporters and the NRP also brought over 100 people from St. Kitts.”
He continued, “If they did all that and Hensley Daniel could only muster a win of 14, then I think he would be in serious trouble. So I would expect a landslide victory for CCM.”
The CCM St. Johns candidate said, however, there was nothing stopping the NRP from “resorting to the same desperate tactics they pulled in July”.
The NRP was returned to government with a 3-2 victory in the July 11, 2011 NIA election. Brantley is seeking to have the results for Constituency #2 invalidated by the court and with the undisputed seats split equally between the two parties, bi-elections in St. Johns will determine whether CCM or NRP will form the government.
The Observer placed several calls to both Hon. Hensley Daniel’s government office and his private cellphone as well as left multiple messages. None of this media house’s calls were returned. A reporter for this publication also visited Minister Daniel’s office earlier this week and after more than an hour’s wait was told by office personnel that the Minister was still unavailable. |
