This Time, Every One Got it Right
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Like others who would like to be on the right side of things for as long as this is humanly possible; we say without cant or equivocation that, [and here, however this wonderful thing was done] the fact now remains that, all who had to weigh in on the decision to have Justice Anita Allen elevated to the high post of President of the Court of Appeal, have all gotten this one -- this time around-- quite right.
We too congratulate this fine jurist, who in a life-time of dedicated service has also been wife and mother – and confidante par excellence to some whose path she crossed.
We also thank her husband, the Hon. Algernon S.P.B. Allen for the part that he has clearly played –as husband and as life-long friend to his ‘Nita’.
Yet again, we insist, this good friend of ours is a jolly good fellow; and a nation-builder in his own right; and so today, we wish the Allen and Bethel families as we weigh in with deserved kudos to Senior Justice Allen on her assumption of her new post.
She is absolutely deserving of this promotion.
For her part, Justice Allen indicated that, she was humbled as well as uplifted by the outpouring of congratulations and by the confidence placed in her by the appointment.
And she stated - "I assure the Prime Minister and the people of the Bahamas who seek justice before the Court of Appeal that my colleagues and I will dispense justice in accordance with the highest judicial standards…”
And ever gracious, Justice Allen thanked her predecessor in office by noting that; "I offer my thanks to my predecessor in office, Dame Joan Sawyer who has given long service to the judiciary. I congratulate her for her efforts in cultivating the relationship between the Bahamas and the Privy Council and for enhancing the delivery of justice in the Court of Appeal through computerization and other innovations…"
As the new president also suggested, “Let me state emphatically that the collegiality and necessary interaction between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal must be restored and nurtured. There must never be an appearance of an adversarial stance between the two courts… they must be complementary to each other while exercising separate jurisdictions."
In addition, she indicated that, "I believe the establishment of a judicial council or judicial studies abroad which has as its function the provision of judicial education is also timely and will improve the quality of justice in our Bahama land.
"We already have a cadre of judges, retired judges, registrars and magistrates who are trained at the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute in Halifax, Canada, and who can assist in the development and implementation of judicial education programmes."
We second this motion; and yet again –as we learn from recent media reports - “New Court of Appeal President Anita Allen called her appointment to the head of the Bahamas' appellate court the "culmination and exclamation point of a lifelong love and passion for the law."
Here we can also note that, “Judge Allen, formerly a senior justice of the Supreme Court, was sworn in [this Friday past] as the new president of the Bahamas Court of Appeal at a brief ceremony at Government House attended by about 300 guests.
As Judge Allen so rightly stated – “There are defining moments in one's life, and certainly, today is one of them for me. It is the culmination and exclamation point of a lifelong love of and passion for the law…"
How very beautiful; and here we repeat for deserved emphasis, ““There are defining moments in one's life, and certainly, today is one of them for me. It is the culmination and exclamation point of a lifelong love of and passion for the law…"
And indeed, there are those defining moments in every life; where some taken do lead to a life of service; grounded in love for a nation and its people.
By the same token, there are times in life when once embarked on the wrong road – the word everywhere blares out the words, No Exit.
Evidently, the moral in the tale – as illuminated in Justice Allen’s poignant words is that, we should all take time to know better than better how the time one has been allotted will be spent.
Therefore, you must be ever so careful once this choice of path ahead confronts and begs for decision.
Anita Allen took a road that has led to the pinnacle of success in her vocation; and so today, we attest and affirm that, we are in fullest agreement with the nation’s Chief when he says that, Justice Anita Allen was "well qualified and suited to be elevated to the Court of Appeal."
Yes and of course, yes – this fine Bahamian is eminently qualified for the post that is now hers.
November 29th, 2010
The Bahama Journal Editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Showing posts with label Justice Anita Allen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Anita Allen. Show all posts
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office is in need of a total overhaul
In the Face of Incompetence
By Felix Bethel
jonesbahamas
Things are clearly going from bad to worse when a senior public officer could blithely tell the public that he – in his capacity as Parliamentary Commissioner – could fix his mouth to admit [even before a critically important bye-election], that he could not verify the accuracy of the register for that election.
This is clear evidence of one other national disgrace!
And so we conclude by way of this extended commentary; and here we also note – and regrettably so – that, there are still some Bahamians who do not get it as discussions, debate and diatribe become fixtures in that matter currently being traded between the nation’s two premier leaders; the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham and his parliamentary counter-part, the Rt. Hon. Perry G. Christie.
While, each -as an important leader in his own right- deserves credit and more for the service they have rendered to the State and to the Bahamian people.
But notwithstanding their joint record of service, they do themselves and their record a profound disservice when either engages or suffers others to engage in any discourse that borders on reeking of incivility.
Sadly, some of this has entered the conversation between the two men, their party supporters and a host of other Bahamians concerning what – if anything – should be done about how the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office is manned, runs and performs.
Evidently, something is wrong in that office; and just as obviously, something must be done about the mess if the Bahamian people are to be left with the assurance that, this vitally important office is up to the task it has been assigned.
This is the sum, then, of the entire matter.
Here we can – of only for the record – some of what we still believe concerning this matter. As we noted in an earlier commentary on the same issue: [Now that] “The dust has settled and the five protested votes have been counted in the bye-election in the Elizabeth constituency.
“Congratulations are in order for Mr. Ryan Pinder who is now the Member of Parliament-elect for that constituency…”
Interestingly, once the Elizabeth contest had been settled; it was revealed – as fact confirmed in the Elections Court – that, “…a high degree of incompetence prevails in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner…”
This was part of the reasoned and fact-based conclusions arrived at by two senior Justices, Mrs. Anita Allen and Mr. Jon Isaacs in a well written judgment said: "Again, this process has exposed failures, omissions and errors on the part of the Parliamentary Commissioner and his staff which may, if not corrected, threaten the fairness of the electoral process and ultimately our democracy…”
There is nothing here that begs for either debate or dispute.
Simply put, the judges spoke and wrote the truth; and as such, their opinions should have factored into subsequent action.
As far as we are aware, no one did anything.
And so, today in a time of heat, recrimination and unnecessary name calling, other snide remarks, bluster and windy rhetoric; little yet is being done to fix the things that have been left broken in the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office.
Yet again, we repeat – and therefore reiterate for emphasis – a point previously made when we indicated that, “…It is not an answer to say that the Parliamentary Commissioner did not have resources to do what he is mandated by the law to do. No court can accept that as an explanation for disenfranchising a voter."
Indeed, as is to be underscored, “…This is the second time since the 2007 general elections that the Parliamentary Commissioner came in for such scathing criticism from the same two Judges…”
Something here smacks either of contempt or reeks of the crassest kind of Bahamian-styled incompetence!
But for sure, we are quite persuaded that, “This is a clear indictment on our parliamentary democracy. It is also shameful that the Parliamentary Commissioner is upbraided again. This time there must be consequences…”
At that juncture, we called for the immediate removal of the current Parliamentary Commissioner and for the Minister with responsibility for that department to accept full responsibility for the debacle which took place.
As the record shows, that just did not happen.
Indeed, it seemed to us that ours was but one voice that cried out its truth; albeit from the depths of a wilderness.
But wilderness or no wilderness, we remain adamant in our conclusion that, the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office is in need of a total overhaul. And for sure, when that process is complete; it should be seen and felt that, those who do so understand and respect – as fact- that when judges speak; their reasoned judgments should be factored into whatever ultimately transpires.
And so, like others who too have a say in matters such as these; we would prefer less diatribe, less windy rhetoric and more real action.
November 5th, 2010
jonesbahamas
By Felix Bethel
jonesbahamas
Things are clearly going from bad to worse when a senior public officer could blithely tell the public that he – in his capacity as Parliamentary Commissioner – could fix his mouth to admit [even before a critically important bye-election], that he could not verify the accuracy of the register for that election.
This is clear evidence of one other national disgrace!
And so we conclude by way of this extended commentary; and here we also note – and regrettably so – that, there are still some Bahamians who do not get it as discussions, debate and diatribe become fixtures in that matter currently being traded between the nation’s two premier leaders; the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham and his parliamentary counter-part, the Rt. Hon. Perry G. Christie.
While, each -as an important leader in his own right- deserves credit and more for the service they have rendered to the State and to the Bahamian people.
But notwithstanding their joint record of service, they do themselves and their record a profound disservice when either engages or suffers others to engage in any discourse that borders on reeking of incivility.
Sadly, some of this has entered the conversation between the two men, their party supporters and a host of other Bahamians concerning what – if anything – should be done about how the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office is manned, runs and performs.
Evidently, something is wrong in that office; and just as obviously, something must be done about the mess if the Bahamian people are to be left with the assurance that, this vitally important office is up to the task it has been assigned.
This is the sum, then, of the entire matter.
Here we can – of only for the record – some of what we still believe concerning this matter. As we noted in an earlier commentary on the same issue: [Now that] “The dust has settled and the five protested votes have been counted in the bye-election in the Elizabeth constituency.
“Congratulations are in order for Mr. Ryan Pinder who is now the Member of Parliament-elect for that constituency…”
Interestingly, once the Elizabeth contest had been settled; it was revealed – as fact confirmed in the Elections Court – that, “…a high degree of incompetence prevails in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner…”
This was part of the reasoned and fact-based conclusions arrived at by two senior Justices, Mrs. Anita Allen and Mr. Jon Isaacs in a well written judgment said: "Again, this process has exposed failures, omissions and errors on the part of the Parliamentary Commissioner and his staff which may, if not corrected, threaten the fairness of the electoral process and ultimately our democracy…”
There is nothing here that begs for either debate or dispute.
Simply put, the judges spoke and wrote the truth; and as such, their opinions should have factored into subsequent action.
As far as we are aware, no one did anything.
And so, today in a time of heat, recrimination and unnecessary name calling, other snide remarks, bluster and windy rhetoric; little yet is being done to fix the things that have been left broken in the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office.
Yet again, we repeat – and therefore reiterate for emphasis – a point previously made when we indicated that, “…It is not an answer to say that the Parliamentary Commissioner did not have resources to do what he is mandated by the law to do. No court can accept that as an explanation for disenfranchising a voter."
Indeed, as is to be underscored, “…This is the second time since the 2007 general elections that the Parliamentary Commissioner came in for such scathing criticism from the same two Judges…”
Something here smacks either of contempt or reeks of the crassest kind of Bahamian-styled incompetence!
But for sure, we are quite persuaded that, “This is a clear indictment on our parliamentary democracy. It is also shameful that the Parliamentary Commissioner is upbraided again. This time there must be consequences…”
At that juncture, we called for the immediate removal of the current Parliamentary Commissioner and for the Minister with responsibility for that department to accept full responsibility for the debacle which took place.
As the record shows, that just did not happen.
Indeed, it seemed to us that ours was but one voice that cried out its truth; albeit from the depths of a wilderness.
But wilderness or no wilderness, we remain adamant in our conclusion that, the Parliamentary Commissioner’s Office is in need of a total overhaul. And for sure, when that process is complete; it should be seen and felt that, those who do so understand and respect – as fact- that when judges speak; their reasoned judgments should be factored into whatever ultimately transpires.
And so, like others who too have a say in matters such as these; we would prefer less diatribe, less windy rhetoric and more real action.
November 5th, 2010
jonesbahamas
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel: I did not break the law
By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel yesterday denied that he broke the law in the execution of his duties in the lead-up to the Elizabeth by-election last month.
Bethel sat down with The Nassau Guardian at his Farrington Road office a day after the justices of the Election Court said in a ruling that he violated the law when he removed a voter's name off the register after it had already been closed.
"I gave it everything I had, to be honest with you," he said of the recent Elizabeth registration process. "I always give my work everything I have. I always plunge fully into whatever it is I have to do, always. People who know me would tell you that... I always endeavor to do my best."
In their ruling, which propelled the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder to victory, Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs said the Election Court case has once again exposed failures in the Parliamentary Registration Department.
"Again this process has exposed failures, omissions and errors on the part of the parliamentary commissioner and his staff which may, if not corrected, threaten the fairness of the electoral process and ultimately our democracy. It is not an answer to say that the parliamentary commissioner did not have the resources to do what he is mandated by the law to do. No court can accept that as an explanation for disenfranchising a voter," they said.
Bethel's staff includes fewer than 20 people. During election periods, other civil servants are seconded from other departments to assist.
Bethel admitted that his department is challenged in preparing for elections, but he said he has a hardworking staff that is quite capable.
"We made ourselves available to the people in Elizabeth when that election was called," he said. "The vacancy came on January 6. On January 7 we were in the constituency and we stayed there for the entire period until the register was closed. We registered new people; we did transfers, that sort of thing. So we did quite a bit of work, and also we walked the streets trying to determine where people are. So it isn't that we sat down; we actually worked to do our best to make sure we had everything in order."
He admitted that the process was difficult.
"You don't know an election is coming up until after it is called, but immediately after it was called we set out to work to make sure that we had things in order," said Bethel, who oversaw the last three general elections in the country, as well as local government elections and by-elections.
Bethel said if he did in fact make mistakes, he will work to ensure those mistakes will not be repeated. He admitted that some things may need to be done differently.
"I think we've got to go beyond what we did to make sure we have total accuracy in terms of where people live," he said.
Pointing to the various challenges faced by his department, Bethel said, "In terms of citizenship, day after day this is becoming an extremely difficult situation to deal with. In the Passport Office for instance, one of the things that happens is that you wait two, three weeks for a passport. When people come to us they expect to get registered in two or three minutes.
"So, we have got to be extremely careful in terms of getting information and people don't understand how difficult that is. There are so many Bahamians who don't have passports, who don't even have birth certificates, so it becomes extremely difficult but we have been working through this and I think we've done a pretty good job."
Asked to respond to people who believe his resignation may be in order, Bethel, who has a constitutionally protected position, said, "I will go. I will go. I'm sure the time will come when I will go. I'm not sure when that is. It may be today, it may be tomorrow, I don't know. If people are going to be fair, I think people also need to give credit for the work I have done over the years and what I continue to do in terms of giving service to this country. I don't think I've cheated the country in any way."
The Election Court justices were also critical of the parliamentary commissioner in the 2008 Pinewood ruling, saying the case had exposed the most egregious failures in the system.
Bethel admitted yesterday that the timing of the 2007 Boundaries Commission report created substantial challenges for him and his staff.
"In preparation of a new register you tend to start at a period of time when you want to make sure that by the time the old register expires you'll have a new register to replace it," he said.
"And so we started the 2007 register in September 2005. We started early because we wanted to make sure that we were able to register anybody who wanted to register. The thing to bear in mind is that in preparation of a new register you do not issue the [voter's] cards.
"The cards are not issued until the new register actually comes into force and the new register did not come into force until the House was dissolved in 2007. The House was dissolved on April 4, 2007. Now, you know that there was a Boundaries Commission (report). That Boundaries Commission report came into effect on March 26, 2007. On April 3 the register was closed for the new election because the House was dissolved on the 4th. After the Boundaries Commission report came into force, what we had to do is, first and foremost, we had to create a new register because we had to create a register that reflects these new constituencies and new polling divisions. So we had to go through the whole registration system in our computer and build this new register."
He said his staff worked day and night in the one week they had to get the job done.
"When people got their cards — remember we started registration in 2005 — a lot of people found the moment they received their cards that they were not in the right place," he said.
"But there is nothing we could do about it because the system does not allow us to move people after the register is closed, but that is what we had to work with. And I think the public needs to understand, you're talking about almost an impossible situation, and at the same time while we were trying to get these cards corrected and get them out we had to be planning an election in terms of putting a staff together, in terms of finding polling places, making sure all the election materials are in place and also making sure that we have ballots for the election. So it is not just one task you have to do. There are a number of different tasks that you have to do all at the same time."
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said at a press conference Tuesday evening he saw no reason for Bethel to leave his post. Ingraham also pledged that the government will effect reforms in the registration process and indicated that it may also amend the law in this regard.
March 25, 2010
thenassauguardian
Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel yesterday denied that he broke the law in the execution of his duties in the lead-up to the Elizabeth by-election last month.
Bethel sat down with The Nassau Guardian at his Farrington Road office a day after the justices of the Election Court said in a ruling that he violated the law when he removed a voter's name off the register after it had already been closed.
"I gave it everything I had, to be honest with you," he said of the recent Elizabeth registration process. "I always give my work everything I have. I always plunge fully into whatever it is I have to do, always. People who know me would tell you that... I always endeavor to do my best."
In their ruling, which propelled the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder to victory, Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs said the Election Court case has once again exposed failures in the Parliamentary Registration Department.
"Again this process has exposed failures, omissions and errors on the part of the parliamentary commissioner and his staff which may, if not corrected, threaten the fairness of the electoral process and ultimately our democracy. It is not an answer to say that the parliamentary commissioner did not have the resources to do what he is mandated by the law to do. No court can accept that as an explanation for disenfranchising a voter," they said.
Bethel's staff includes fewer than 20 people. During election periods, other civil servants are seconded from other departments to assist.
Bethel admitted that his department is challenged in preparing for elections, but he said he has a hardworking staff that is quite capable.
"We made ourselves available to the people in Elizabeth when that election was called," he said. "The vacancy came on January 6. On January 7 we were in the constituency and we stayed there for the entire period until the register was closed. We registered new people; we did transfers, that sort of thing. So we did quite a bit of work, and also we walked the streets trying to determine where people are. So it isn't that we sat down; we actually worked to do our best to make sure we had everything in order."
He admitted that the process was difficult.
"You don't know an election is coming up until after it is called, but immediately after it was called we set out to work to make sure that we had things in order," said Bethel, who oversaw the last three general elections in the country, as well as local government elections and by-elections.
Bethel said if he did in fact make mistakes, he will work to ensure those mistakes will not be repeated. He admitted that some things may need to be done differently.
"I think we've got to go beyond what we did to make sure we have total accuracy in terms of where people live," he said.
Pointing to the various challenges faced by his department, Bethel said, "In terms of citizenship, day after day this is becoming an extremely difficult situation to deal with. In the Passport Office for instance, one of the things that happens is that you wait two, three weeks for a passport. When people come to us they expect to get registered in two or three minutes.
"So, we have got to be extremely careful in terms of getting information and people don't understand how difficult that is. There are so many Bahamians who don't have passports, who don't even have birth certificates, so it becomes extremely difficult but we have been working through this and I think we've done a pretty good job."
Asked to respond to people who believe his resignation may be in order, Bethel, who has a constitutionally protected position, said, "I will go. I will go. I'm sure the time will come when I will go. I'm not sure when that is. It may be today, it may be tomorrow, I don't know. If people are going to be fair, I think people also need to give credit for the work I have done over the years and what I continue to do in terms of giving service to this country. I don't think I've cheated the country in any way."
The Election Court justices were also critical of the parliamentary commissioner in the 2008 Pinewood ruling, saying the case had exposed the most egregious failures in the system.
Bethel admitted yesterday that the timing of the 2007 Boundaries Commission report created substantial challenges for him and his staff.
"In preparation of a new register you tend to start at a period of time when you want to make sure that by the time the old register expires you'll have a new register to replace it," he said.
"And so we started the 2007 register in September 2005. We started early because we wanted to make sure that we were able to register anybody who wanted to register. The thing to bear in mind is that in preparation of a new register you do not issue the [voter's] cards.
"The cards are not issued until the new register actually comes into force and the new register did not come into force until the House was dissolved in 2007. The House was dissolved on April 4, 2007. Now, you know that there was a Boundaries Commission (report). That Boundaries Commission report came into effect on March 26, 2007. On April 3 the register was closed for the new election because the House was dissolved on the 4th. After the Boundaries Commission report came into force, what we had to do is, first and foremost, we had to create a new register because we had to create a register that reflects these new constituencies and new polling divisions. So we had to go through the whole registration system in our computer and build this new register."
He said his staff worked day and night in the one week they had to get the job done.
"When people got their cards — remember we started registration in 2005 — a lot of people found the moment they received their cards that they were not in the right place," he said.
"But there is nothing we could do about it because the system does not allow us to move people after the register is closed, but that is what we had to work with. And I think the public needs to understand, you're talking about almost an impossible situation, and at the same time while we were trying to get these cards corrected and get them out we had to be planning an election in terms of putting a staff together, in terms of finding polling places, making sure all the election materials are in place and also making sure that we have ballots for the election. So it is not just one task you have to do. There are a number of different tasks that you have to do all at the same time."
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said at a press conference Tuesday evening he saw no reason for Bethel to leave his post. Ingraham also pledged that the government will effect reforms in the registration process and indicated that it may also amend the law in this regard.
March 25, 2010
thenassauguardian
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Philip Brave Davis - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) lead counsel makes final submissions in Election Court
By Krystel Rolle ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
Mistakes by the Parliamentary Registration Department accounted for some of the confusion which resulted in five people casting their votes on colored ballots during the Elizabeth by-election, lead counsel for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Philip Brave Davis said as he made his final submissions in Election Court yesterday.
"Unfortunately, failures in the parliamentary registration system persist", said Davis.
"And the parliamentary commissioner's failure to ensure the integrity of the registration process and as a consequence the register continues."
He continued, "What is lamentable is that the Election Court has had the occasion to point these facts out and admonished action on the part of the parliamentary commissioner.
"But alas to naught. Here we are again - [almost] three years later," Davis added, referring to the Pinewood election case which he claimed exposed "the most egregious failures in the parliamentary system."
Senior Justice Jon Isaacs interrupted Davis, pointing out that the parliamentary commissioner is "starved of resources." He added that Davis' criticisms seemed unfair. However, Senior Justice Anita Allen said the lack of resources cannot be used as an excuse in this instance.
Yesterday, Davis laid out several reasons why the Election Court should validate the five protest ballots cast in favor of PLP Elizabeth candidate Ryan Pinder.
If at least three of those votes are approved, Pinder would be declared the winner of the February 16 by-election, which ended with Dr. Duane Sands receiving 1,501 votes and Pinder receiving 1,499. If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
In the case of voter A (as she is referred to protect her identity), Davis said there is overwhelming evidence to support that she is an ordinary resident of the Elizabeth constituency, including the fact that she voted in Elizabeth during the 2007 general election.
Additionally, Davis noted that the third respondent, who is Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands, met voter A on February 13 at approximately 3 p.m. while campaigning in the area.
Davis said he expected Sands' counsels to bring up that point considering that they are trying to assist the court in the inquiry.
"I am deeply disappointed that we did not have the assistance of the third respondent," Davis said.
"There appears to be no issue as to whether [the voter] lives on Pine Barren Road," he added.
During the course of the challenge, Sands' attorneys suggested that voter A lived in another constituency.
Voter A is not on the register for the Elizabeth constituency. In her evidence she said when her voter's card was initially issued to her in 2007, it listed her address as North Pine Barren Road, which placed her in the Fox Hill constituency.
The voter said she along with her husband and others in her extended family went to the Parliamentary Registration Department some time later to rectify the mistake. She also said she got a new voter's card which listed her address as South Pine Barren Road, thereby placing her in the Elizabeth constituency.
Davis said yesterday that the voter should not be disenfranchised because of the failure of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Office to correct its internal records.
Davis noted that clerical errors made in the register also led to the disenfranchisement of voter C.
He said on voter B's form B (registration form), her voter's card and her passport have her date of birth listed as January 3, 1970, while her form D (counterfoil) and the entry in the register have January 13, 1970. He noted that Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel accepted that there were clerical errors made on form D.
Davis said no further issue affects the voter, and as a result the register should be rectified accordingly.
In relation to voter E, Davis said she should not have been made to vote on a colored ballot. According to him the voter produced sufficient means to cast her ballot.
Voter E was challenged on the grounds that she did not live in the constituency. However, Davis pointed out that an examination of her voter's card and forms B and D reveals a discrepancy in her address.
Her B and D forms B show her address as South Sandilands Village Road, West Fox Hill Road, East Alligator Court. Her voter's card shows the same address, but East Alligator Road is recorded instead of 'Court'. However, neither East Alligator Road or Court were included on the register because of computer constraints, Davis said, which resulted in the voter having to cast her vote on a protest ballot.
Davis said the vote should be allowed because the presiding officer misdirected himself in permitting the voter to cast her vote on a colored ballot. He added that the voter should not be disenfranchised because of that misdirection.
In the case of voter D, Davis said her name should have never been removed from the register.
"The parliamentary commissioner's act was contrary to law," said Davis.
As reported in The Nassau Guardian last week, the address on voter D's counterfoil was originally marked as 152 Commonwealth Boulevard, South Malaysia Way. However, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel told the court that the Parliamentary Registration Department changed it to North Malaysia Way.
The parliamentary commissioner said that this was done after voter D had already sworn an oath that the original address was correct.
Bethel admitted that both the counterfoil and the oath were changed after he authorized the voter's name to be placed on the Yamacraw register.
He said he did not recall whether he notified the voter when the change was made.
Yesterday, Davis said that according to Section 25 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the day after a writ of election (issued by an executive authority requiring that an election be held) is ordered no name or entry can be removed from any of the appropriate parts of the register until after the poll day.
He noted that Bethel acknowledged the voter's name was removed on January 30.
"The parliamentary commissioner's act was contrary to law," Davis said.
He added that the parliamentary commissioner should have allowed the name to remain on the register and flagged or challenged the vote on election day.
Finally, in the case of voter F - who moved to Elizabeth in 2006 but did notify the Parliamentary Registration Department of the address change - Davis said the act of applying for a transfer is discretionary and not one that any voter is obligated to do.
He said it is the duty of the Parliamentary Registration Department to ensure that people are registered in the correct constituency.
Voter F told the court earlier this week that she cast her vote for the PLP candidate in the 2007 general election at the Thelma Gibson Primary School. She noted that her current voter's card places her in the Yamacraw constituency, but she said she moved from Yamacraw Shores in 2006 to Pine Barren Road. Yesterday Davis said because she is a resident of the constituency and has already voted, the vote should be counted.
Pinder, who is the petitioner, is exercising his right under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory of his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
In addition to Davis, Pinder is represented by attorneys Valentine Grimes, Wayne Munroe and Keod Smith.
Sands is represented by attorneys Thomas Evans, QC, and Milton Evans.
Evans, QC will make his final submissions today. Attorney David Higgins of the Office of the Attorney General, who is representing Parliamentary Commissioner Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson, is expected to close out the submissions portion when Evans is done.
After that, Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs are expected to deliberate on which if any of the five protest votes will be accepted.
March 18, 2010
thenassauguardian
Mistakes by the Parliamentary Registration Department accounted for some of the confusion which resulted in five people casting their votes on colored ballots during the Elizabeth by-election, lead counsel for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Philip Brave Davis said as he made his final submissions in Election Court yesterday.
"Unfortunately, failures in the parliamentary registration system persist", said Davis.
"And the parliamentary commissioner's failure to ensure the integrity of the registration process and as a consequence the register continues."
He continued, "What is lamentable is that the Election Court has had the occasion to point these facts out and admonished action on the part of the parliamentary commissioner.
"But alas to naught. Here we are again - [almost] three years later," Davis added, referring to the Pinewood election case which he claimed exposed "the most egregious failures in the parliamentary system."
Senior Justice Jon Isaacs interrupted Davis, pointing out that the parliamentary commissioner is "starved of resources." He added that Davis' criticisms seemed unfair. However, Senior Justice Anita Allen said the lack of resources cannot be used as an excuse in this instance.
Yesterday, Davis laid out several reasons why the Election Court should validate the five protest ballots cast in favor of PLP Elizabeth candidate Ryan Pinder.
If at least three of those votes are approved, Pinder would be declared the winner of the February 16 by-election, which ended with Dr. Duane Sands receiving 1,501 votes and Pinder receiving 1,499. If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
In the case of voter A (as she is referred to protect her identity), Davis said there is overwhelming evidence to support that she is an ordinary resident of the Elizabeth constituency, including the fact that she voted in Elizabeth during the 2007 general election.
Additionally, Davis noted that the third respondent, who is Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands, met voter A on February 13 at approximately 3 p.m. while campaigning in the area.
Davis said he expected Sands' counsels to bring up that point considering that they are trying to assist the court in the inquiry.
"I am deeply disappointed that we did not have the assistance of the third respondent," Davis said.
"There appears to be no issue as to whether [the voter] lives on Pine Barren Road," he added.
During the course of the challenge, Sands' attorneys suggested that voter A lived in another constituency.
Voter A is not on the register for the Elizabeth constituency. In her evidence she said when her voter's card was initially issued to her in 2007, it listed her address as North Pine Barren Road, which placed her in the Fox Hill constituency.
The voter said she along with her husband and others in her extended family went to the Parliamentary Registration Department some time later to rectify the mistake. She also said she got a new voter's card which listed her address as South Pine Barren Road, thereby placing her in the Elizabeth constituency.
Davis said yesterday that the voter should not be disenfranchised because of the failure of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Office to correct its internal records.
Davis noted that clerical errors made in the register also led to the disenfranchisement of voter C.
He said on voter B's form B (registration form), her voter's card and her passport have her date of birth listed as January 3, 1970, while her form D (counterfoil) and the entry in the register have January 13, 1970. He noted that Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel accepted that there were clerical errors made on form D.
Davis said no further issue affects the voter, and as a result the register should be rectified accordingly.
In relation to voter E, Davis said she should not have been made to vote on a colored ballot. According to him the voter produced sufficient means to cast her ballot.
Voter E was challenged on the grounds that she did not live in the constituency. However, Davis pointed out that an examination of her voter's card and forms B and D reveals a discrepancy in her address.
Her B and D forms B show her address as South Sandilands Village Road, West Fox Hill Road, East Alligator Court. Her voter's card shows the same address, but East Alligator Road is recorded instead of 'Court'. However, neither East Alligator Road or Court were included on the register because of computer constraints, Davis said, which resulted in the voter having to cast her vote on a protest ballot.
Davis said the vote should be allowed because the presiding officer misdirected himself in permitting the voter to cast her vote on a colored ballot. He added that the voter should not be disenfranchised because of that misdirection.
In the case of voter D, Davis said her name should have never been removed from the register.
"The parliamentary commissioner's act was contrary to law," said Davis.
As reported in The Nassau Guardian last week, the address on voter D's counterfoil was originally marked as 152 Commonwealth Boulevard, South Malaysia Way. However, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel told the court that the Parliamentary Registration Department changed it to North Malaysia Way.
The parliamentary commissioner said that this was done after voter D had already sworn an oath that the original address was correct.
Bethel admitted that both the counterfoil and the oath were changed after he authorized the voter's name to be placed on the Yamacraw register.
He said he did not recall whether he notified the voter when the change was made.
Yesterday, Davis said that according to Section 25 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the day after a writ of election (issued by an executive authority requiring that an election be held) is ordered no name or entry can be removed from any of the appropriate parts of the register until after the poll day.
He noted that Bethel acknowledged the voter's name was removed on January 30.
"The parliamentary commissioner's act was contrary to law," Davis said.
He added that the parliamentary commissioner should have allowed the name to remain on the register and flagged or challenged the vote on election day.
Finally, in the case of voter F - who moved to Elizabeth in 2006 but did notify the Parliamentary Registration Department of the address change - Davis said the act of applying for a transfer is discretionary and not one that any voter is obligated to do.
He said it is the duty of the Parliamentary Registration Department to ensure that people are registered in the correct constituency.
Voter F told the court earlier this week that she cast her vote for the PLP candidate in the 2007 general election at the Thelma Gibson Primary School. She noted that her current voter's card places her in the Yamacraw constituency, but she said she moved from Yamacraw Shores in 2006 to Pine Barren Road. Yesterday Davis said because she is a resident of the constituency and has already voted, the vote should be counted.
Pinder, who is the petitioner, is exercising his right under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory of his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
In addition to Davis, Pinder is represented by attorneys Valentine Grimes, Wayne Munroe and Keod Smith.
Sands is represented by attorneys Thomas Evans, QC, and Milton Evans.
Evans, QC will make his final submissions today. Attorney David Higgins of the Office of the Attorney General, who is representing Parliamentary Commissioner Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson, is expected to close out the submissions portion when Evans is done.
After that, Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs are expected to deliberate on which if any of the five protest votes will be accepted.
March 18, 2010
thenassauguardian
Friday, March 12, 2010
Election Court Bahamas: Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Election Court petition will stand
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
The Election Court yesterday rejected an application filed on behalf of Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands to throw out the petition of the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder on the basis that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Sands' lead counsel Thomas Evans, QC raised that argument yesterday as the Elizabeth challenge got underway before Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs.
Evans contended that Pinder's petition is deficient as it does not set out what he is hoping to gain at the end of the process and thereby places the respondents at a disadvantage.
Pinder, who was the PLP's candidate in the recent by-election in Elizabeth, wants the court to rule that five protest votes cast in his favor are valid. If at least three of those votes are approved, he would be declared the winner of the election.
The respondents in the case include Sands, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson.
Evans said the basic principle of the case requires the respondents to know what the case is.
He noted that Pinder wants the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
This section of the act allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory by his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
"A petitioner who is seeking to avail himself of the jurisdiction of the court ought to say what he is seeking," Evans said.
"In this case one would expect that he would reveal exactly what it is that he seeks to receive from the court. If he does not do that he puts the respondents in a position of not knowing what case they have to meet, not knowing what they have to respond to."
Evans said the petitioner (Pinder) must assert that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote.
"The petition contains no prayer in his favor. There are no grounds given for finding that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote," Evans said. "A petition has particular characteristics, one of which [is] the petitioner must set out the brief facts. Notwithstanding the discreet nature of the petition, the court must deal with it in the same manner as it deals with any other petition."
Evans argued that the defect in the petition cannot be cured by an amendment.
Attorney David Higgins, who represents Bethel and Thompson, adopted that position. Higgins said the petition ought to be able to stand on its own.
Additionally, Evans argued that it would be an abuse of the court process if the petition is allowed in court.
However, Pinder's lead counsel Philip "Brave" Davis argued that it would be an injustice to strike out the petition.
He said respondents should know exactly what the petitioner is seeking to gain.
Davis said he was surprised that the justices would even allow such submissions to be made.
"I do not know what else they want to know. I have given them our complete written submissions," Davis said.
"I think the parties have all that they require. To suggest that we should strike out the petition is an alarming proposition."
After a 10-minute break to decide whether the petition was in fact fundamentally flawed, Senior Justice Allen announced that the application to strike out the petition was denied.
Evans then sought an application to stay the case so that he could appeal the justices' decision, but Davis objected.
He said it would be a "total waste of time" and urged the justices to refuse the request.
The justices took a short break to decide if they would allow the stay. However, after about 15 minutes, Allen announced that that request was also rejected.
She said it is imperative that the will of the electorate be determined as soon as possible.
Allen also noted that costs would be awarded to the petitioner for two attorneys.
Evans then requested the court to grant him a conservatory stay until Monday so that he could approach the Court of Appeal. However, that request was also denied.
Davis noted that Evans has the option of approaching the Court of Appeal before the start of today's proceedings, which are set to begin at 10 a.m.
It is unclear whether Evans will still attempt to appeal the justices' decision.
Allen said the proceedings will continue today with Davis presenting his submissions.
The Elizabeth by-election, which took place February 16, ended with Sands receiving 1,501 regular votes and Pinder receiving 1,499 regular votes.
If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
Friday March 12, 2010
thenassauguardian
The Election Court yesterday rejected an application filed on behalf of Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands to throw out the petition of the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder on the basis that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Sands' lead counsel Thomas Evans, QC raised that argument yesterday as the Elizabeth challenge got underway before Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs.
Evans contended that Pinder's petition is deficient as it does not set out what he is hoping to gain at the end of the process and thereby places the respondents at a disadvantage.
Pinder, who was the PLP's candidate in the recent by-election in Elizabeth, wants the court to rule that five protest votes cast in his favor are valid. If at least three of those votes are approved, he would be declared the winner of the election.
The respondents in the case include Sands, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson.
Evans said the basic principle of the case requires the respondents to know what the case is.
He noted that Pinder wants the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
This section of the act allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory by his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
"A petitioner who is seeking to avail himself of the jurisdiction of the court ought to say what he is seeking," Evans said.
"In this case one would expect that he would reveal exactly what it is that he seeks to receive from the court. If he does not do that he puts the respondents in a position of not knowing what case they have to meet, not knowing what they have to respond to."
Evans said the petitioner (Pinder) must assert that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote.
"The petition contains no prayer in his favor. There are no grounds given for finding that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote," Evans said. "A petition has particular characteristics, one of which [is] the petitioner must set out the brief facts. Notwithstanding the discreet nature of the petition, the court must deal with it in the same manner as it deals with any other petition."
Evans argued that the defect in the petition cannot be cured by an amendment.
Attorney David Higgins, who represents Bethel and Thompson, adopted that position. Higgins said the petition ought to be able to stand on its own.
Additionally, Evans argued that it would be an abuse of the court process if the petition is allowed in court.
However, Pinder's lead counsel Philip "Brave" Davis argued that it would be an injustice to strike out the petition.
He said respondents should know exactly what the petitioner is seeking to gain.
Davis said he was surprised that the justices would even allow such submissions to be made.
"I do not know what else they want to know. I have given them our complete written submissions," Davis said.
"I think the parties have all that they require. To suggest that we should strike out the petition is an alarming proposition."
After a 10-minute break to decide whether the petition was in fact fundamentally flawed, Senior Justice Allen announced that the application to strike out the petition was denied.
Evans then sought an application to stay the case so that he could appeal the justices' decision, but Davis objected.
He said it would be a "total waste of time" and urged the justices to refuse the request.
The justices took a short break to decide if they would allow the stay. However, after about 15 minutes, Allen announced that that request was also rejected.
She said it is imperative that the will of the electorate be determined as soon as possible.
Allen also noted that costs would be awarded to the petitioner for two attorneys.
Evans then requested the court to grant him a conservatory stay until Monday so that he could approach the Court of Appeal. However, that request was also denied.
Davis noted that Evans has the option of approaching the Court of Appeal before the start of today's proceedings, which are set to begin at 10 a.m.
It is unclear whether Evans will still attempt to appeal the justices' decision.
Allen said the proceedings will continue today with Davis presenting his submissions.
The Elizabeth by-election, which took place February 16, ended with Sands receiving 1,501 regular votes and Pinder receiving 1,499 regular votes.
If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
Friday March 12, 2010
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)