Bradley Roberts denies conspiring with former Water and Sewerage chairman
By MEGAN REYNOLDS
Tribune Staff Reporter
mreynolds@tribunemedia.net:
PLP chairman Bradley Roberts has denied claims he conspired with the former Water and Sewerage Corporation chairman to offer a lucrative contract to a PLP member as alleged during testimony in an industrial tribunal.
The former Minister of Works and Utilities was said by sacked Water and Sewerage Corporation (WSC) engineer Mario Bastian to have conspired with former Corporation chairman Don Demeritte to call off the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant to start negotiations with BK Water Limited/Veolia, whose principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
The deal, according to the testimony given before the Industrial Tribunal, was allegedly discussed before Mr Bastian's termination from the corporation in September, 2006. In his testimony, Mr Bastian claimed it would have cost Bahamians millions of dollars more to have gone with BK Water. However, the plan did not go ahead as the PLP government was voted out of office the following May, the tribunal was told.
Mr Roberts was unwilling to devote any time to the claims when asked by The Tribune yesterday, angrily shrugging off all allegations as false and of little cause for concern.
"It is utter BS," Mr Roberts said.
And when asked to comment in further detail, he added: "I was emphatic with you, that is utter BS!
"I never met the young man in my life, I never dealt with individuals at the corporation, the board of directors was it.
"There is nothing for me to defend myself about.
"This is like water off a duck's back for Bradley Roberts."
Mr Demeritte declined the opportunity to speak publicly on the matter as he is due to appear as a witness at the tribunal.
However the tribunal, presided over by Harrison Lockhart which met on Monday, has now been postponed indefinitely owing to the ill health of an attorney, a court official told The Tribune yesterday.
Mr Bastian claims he was wrongfully dismissed from WSC, and victimised because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices. He also alleges breach of contract and damage to his reputation.
However, Corporation officials maintain they terminated Mr Bastian's contract as he was simultaneously serving as a director of CBA Engineering Ltd, a company in direct competition with WSC.
Mr Bastian denied the conflict of interest allegation, but raised further allegations about a WSC conspiracy to waste millions of dollars paid by hardworking Bahamian taxpayers by engaging in an economically nonsensical contract with BK Water/Veolia.
He told the hearing on Monday how WSC general manager Abraham Butler gave a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
Negotiations began but were stopped when the government changed in May 2007.
WSC counsel Thomas Evans, QC, said Mr Bastian was accusing Mr Roberts, Mr Demeritte, and other WSC senior officials of, "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
However, Mr Bastian alleged that WSC chairman Demeritte manipulated the corporation and intimidated him into providing information about Mr Butler that could lead to his dismissal as the chairman inferred that he (Bastian) would be sacked if he did not comply, and promoted if he did.
Mr Demeritte and Mr Butler reached an irreconcilable position when the general manager criticised the chairman's "unauthorised" promotion of minor staff to lucrative positions in February 2006.
The promotions soon prompted industrial action when employees learned 56 staff had been promoted twice within 12 months, while 45 were twice overlooked.
And as fights erupted between Mr Butler, Mr Demeritte and union members, Mr Butler was removed from the corporation under the PLP.
Mr Bastian wants the tribunal to decide if the corporation was justified in terminating his contract.
May 05, 2010
tribune242
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 Thomas Evans QC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Evans QC. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Conspiracy claims against Bradley Roberts and Don Demeritte
Conspiracy claims against Roberts
By CANDIA DAMES ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
A former senior engineer at the Water and Sewerage Corporation, who was fired in 2006 for alleged conflict of interest, claimed yesterday that then PLP Minister Bradley Roberts and then Chairman Don Demeritte led a conspiracy that would have bilked Bahamians of millions of dollars.
Mario Bastian, who testified in the Industrial Tribunal, claimed that Roberts and Demeritte instructed the corporation's general manager at the time to annul the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant at Arawak Cay, and ordered that the corporation negotiate with BK Water Limited/Veolia. BK Water's principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
Bastian was testifying under oath before Industrial Tribunal President Harrison Lockhart.
He suggested that going with BK Water would have cost taxpayers many millions of unnecessary dollars.
Under cross-examination by the corporation's attorney, Thomas Evans QC, Bastian admitted that he had personally had no conversation with then Minister Roberts regarding the bidding process. Roberts had responsibility for the corporation.
Bastian was fired on September 4, 2006, nearly 20 years after he was hired, but he alleges he was victimized.
The corporation fired Bastian saying it had a lack of trust and confidence in him, according to the evidence. The allegation was that Bastian was an officer of a company that was in direct competition with the corporation, thus giving rise to a conflict of interest situation.
The engineer — who is represented by attorney Pericles Maillis — is claiming breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and damage to his reputation among other things.
Bastian contends in his originating application that he was victimized by the corporation because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices.
He told the Tribunal that he received intimidating phone calls from W&SC Chairman Demeritte. The engineer claimed that at one point Demeritte called him at home and pressed him for information that could help the corporation get rid of General Manager Abraham Butler. Bastian said Demeritte told him that he had the power to promote him (Bastian) but he had to be a team player.
He also said he took the chairman's statements to mean, "If you don't work with me the highway would be your route, and so said so done."
Bastian said, "I felt intimidated in doing my job.
"If in the course of performing your job you made recommendations that were contrary to what persons in certain quarters of the corporation wanted... there was a distinct possibility that there will be repercussions."'
He claimed he told the chairman that he believed in getting promotions based on merit.
Evans submitted that there was no intimidation.
Asked by Evans why he never complained about the alleged actions of the chairman, Bastian said allegations had been made against the chairman in the past, but to no avail.
Questioned repeatedly yesterday by Evans, Bastian denied that he was involved in a conflict of interest. The engineer was a director in CBA Engineering Limited. Bastian told the Tribunal he resigned as a director after the corporation made the conflict of interest allegation.
"I elected to resign from the company (CBA). I did what any good citizen would have done under the circumstances," Bastian said. "I did nothing wrong and yet still I was penalized."
The engineer said he was angered by the allegations that had been lodged against his professional character.
He said, "Once the bullet is out the gun it's very difficult to control the damage."
But Evans suggested that the reason Bastian resigned from CBA is that he wanted to distance himself from a clear conflict of interest.
Bastian however, insisted that the corporation was unable to show any clear conflict of interest.
Evans said that Bastian was accusing the then minister, chairman and other senior officials at the corporation of "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
Asked to explain why he accused Roberts of conspiracy, Bastian said the instruction that came through the general manager was that the minister and chairman had given a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
"This was not a standard process," he told the Tribunal.
Asked if he had relied on a hearsay statement from the general manager, Bastian repeated that he had received instructions from the GM and negotiations commenced with BK Water/Veolia.
He claimed that the chairman and other management personnel "manipulated" the corporation.
During his testimony, Bastian said BK Water never got a contract. He told the Tribunal it was because there was a change in government.
Evans said parts of Bastian's testimony were irrelevant.
What the Tribunal has to decide, he pointed out, is whether the corporation was justified in terminating Bastian.
Bastian told the Tribunal that there were clear instances of conflict of interest situations in the corporation, but he was the one singled out and his matter was not even a conflict of interest.
But Evans said whether or not other people who were guilty of conflict of interest were dealt with has no bearing on Bastian's matter before the Tribunal.
Maillis, however, insisted that Bastian was marked and that was part of the victimization.
Evans said he had a problem with Bastian going on a witch-hunt about others allegedly in conflict of interest situations.
President Lockhart then noted that there is a line of authority in industrial law that seems to suggest that the singling out of an individual who may be a part of a group of individuals seems to be unfair.
Pointing to what he suggested was a conflict of interest, Bastian said Simmons Manufacturing (which manufactures shoes) supplies boots to the corporation. The owner's wife is a manager at the corporation, he pointed out.
Evans submitted that the corporation had a relationship with Simmons Manufacturing long before Daphne Simmons was hired, but Bastian insisted this was not the case.
Bastian also claimed that he was blacklisted by the corporation after he was fired, in that the state-owned entity refused to add him to its list of approved engineers. He said he suffered severe mental and economic stress. Bastian told the Tribunal that he is currently unemployed.
Roberts and Demeritte do not have legal representation at the Tribunal. With Bastian repeatedly raising very serious allegations against them, it is unclear whether they will seek representation to defend themselves.
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
A former senior engineer at the Water and Sewerage Corporation, who was fired in 2006 for alleged conflict of interest, claimed yesterday that then PLP Minister Bradley Roberts and then Chairman Don Demeritte led a conspiracy that would have bilked Bahamians of millions of dollars.
Mario Bastian, who testified in the Industrial Tribunal, claimed that Roberts and Demeritte instructed the corporation's general manager at the time to annul the bidding process for a reverse osmosis plant at Arawak Cay, and ordered that the corporation negotiate with BK Water Limited/Veolia. BK Water's principal was Jerome Fitzgerald, now a PLP senator.
Bastian was testifying under oath before Industrial Tribunal President Harrison Lockhart.
He suggested that going with BK Water would have cost taxpayers many millions of unnecessary dollars.
Under cross-examination by the corporation's attorney, Thomas Evans QC, Bastian admitted that he had personally had no conversation with then Minister Roberts regarding the bidding process. Roberts had responsibility for the corporation.
Bastian was fired on September 4, 2006, nearly 20 years after he was hired, but he alleges he was victimized.
The corporation fired Bastian saying it had a lack of trust and confidence in him, according to the evidence. The allegation was that Bastian was an officer of a company that was in direct competition with the corporation, thus giving rise to a conflict of interest situation.
The engineer — who is represented by attorney Pericles Maillis — is claiming breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and damage to his reputation among other things.
Bastian contends in his originating application that he was victimized by the corporation because he refused to engage in unprofessional and unscrupulous management practices.
He told the Tribunal that he received intimidating phone calls from W&SC Chairman Demeritte. The engineer claimed that at one point Demeritte called him at home and pressed him for information that could help the corporation get rid of General Manager Abraham Butler. Bastian said Demeritte told him that he had the power to promote him (Bastian) but he had to be a team player.
He also said he took the chairman's statements to mean, "If you don't work with me the highway would be your route, and so said so done."
Bastian said, "I felt intimidated in doing my job.
"If in the course of performing your job you made recommendations that were contrary to what persons in certain quarters of the corporation wanted... there was a distinct possibility that there will be repercussions."'
He claimed he told the chairman that he believed in getting promotions based on merit.
Evans submitted that there was no intimidation.
Asked by Evans why he never complained about the alleged actions of the chairman, Bastian said allegations had been made against the chairman in the past, but to no avail.
Questioned repeatedly yesterday by Evans, Bastian denied that he was involved in a conflict of interest. The engineer was a director in CBA Engineering Limited. Bastian told the Tribunal he resigned as a director after the corporation made the conflict of interest allegation.
"I elected to resign from the company (CBA). I did what any good citizen would have done under the circumstances," Bastian said. "I did nothing wrong and yet still I was penalized."
The engineer said he was angered by the allegations that had been lodged against his professional character.
He said, "Once the bullet is out the gun it's very difficult to control the damage."
But Evans suggested that the reason Bastian resigned from CBA is that he wanted to distance himself from a clear conflict of interest.
Bastian however, insisted that the corporation was unable to show any clear conflict of interest.
Evans said that Bastian was accusing the then minister, chairman and other senior officials at the corporation of "a dastardly conspiracy to rob Bahamian people of millions of dollars."
Asked to explain why he accused Roberts of conspiracy, Bastian said the instruction that came through the general manager was that the minister and chairman had given a directive to end the bidding process and engage in negotiations with BK Water/Veolia.
"This was not a standard process," he told the Tribunal.
Asked if he had relied on a hearsay statement from the general manager, Bastian repeated that he had received instructions from the GM and negotiations commenced with BK Water/Veolia.
He claimed that the chairman and other management personnel "manipulated" the corporation.
During his testimony, Bastian said BK Water never got a contract. He told the Tribunal it was because there was a change in government.
Evans said parts of Bastian's testimony were irrelevant.
What the Tribunal has to decide, he pointed out, is whether the corporation was justified in terminating Bastian.
Bastian told the Tribunal that there were clear instances of conflict of interest situations in the corporation, but he was the one singled out and his matter was not even a conflict of interest.
But Evans said whether or not other people who were guilty of conflict of interest were dealt with has no bearing on Bastian's matter before the Tribunal.
Maillis, however, insisted that Bastian was marked and that was part of the victimization.
Evans said he had a problem with Bastian going on a witch-hunt about others allegedly in conflict of interest situations.
President Lockhart then noted that there is a line of authority in industrial law that seems to suggest that the singling out of an individual who may be a part of a group of individuals seems to be unfair.
Pointing to what he suggested was a conflict of interest, Bastian said Simmons Manufacturing (which manufactures shoes) supplies boots to the corporation. The owner's wife is a manager at the corporation, he pointed out.
Evans submitted that the corporation had a relationship with Simmons Manufacturing long before Daphne Simmons was hired, but Bastian insisted this was not the case.
Bastian also claimed that he was blacklisted by the corporation after he was fired, in that the state-owned entity refused to add him to its list of approved engineers. He said he suffered severe mental and economic stress. Bastian told the Tribunal that he is currently unemployed.
Roberts and Demeritte do not have legal representation at the Tribunal. With Bastian repeatedly raising very serious allegations against them, it is unclear whether they will seek representation to defend themselves.
thenassauguardian
Monday, May 3, 2010
Senior Justice Jon Isaacs addresses controversial bail issue
Judge addresses controversial bail issue
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
While acknowledging that every person accused of committing a crime is entitled to apply for bail, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs said Saturday he would have no difficulty denying it to a person accused of a serious crime if the case is tried within a reasonable period of time.
Isaacs was reacting to the government's declaration in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring an amendment to Parliament which would further restrict the right to bail for people charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
"The only difficulty I would have is if persons are left to languish in prison for inordinate periods of time," said Isaacs, who was speaking during a panel discussion on 'Crime and its effects on our community', which was held on the greens of Super Value food store in Winton Estates. The panel discussion, which was attended by scores of Bahamians, was a part of the police and the Eastern Community Association's Fun Fantastic Festival.
"If persons are brought to trial within a reasonable period of time I have no difficulty with them remaining until such time as they face their accusers," Isaacs said.
Isaacs told The Nassau Guardian following the panel discussion that in most cases accused criminals are left in prison for long periods of time before their cases come to trial.
"That's where I have a problem," he said.
Asked what he considers a reasonable time for a case to come before the Supreme Court, Isaacs said every case has to be evaluated individually based on the evidence.
Thomas Evans, QC, who was also a member of the panel, said he considers two or three years to be a reasonable amount of time.
"But the reality on the ground is that you're [not] getting a case through the system until about five or six years," Evans said.
During the panel discussion, Isaacs recalled one case where four individuals were on bail for 16 years before their case went to trial.
"Imagine if you will if those persons were not allowed on bail for 16 years," he said. "Imagine their sense of grievance. What would the community offer by way of compensation? There is no redress for a person who has to spend time at Her Majesty's Prison awaiting trial."
Acknowledging that crime is spiraling out of control, Isaacs said he understands the society's call for harsher measures.
"There are those who advocate no bail for those accused of crime and harsher punishment for those convicted of offenses," Isaacs said. "While there may be some efficacy in the effort to deter persons from committing certain offenses by the imposition of stiff penalties, when one seeks to deprive those alleged to have committed offenses of their liberty without the benefit of a trial one has overstepped the permissible bounds of response to crime unless one is willing to ensure such persons receive trials within a reasonable time."
The government noted in the Speech from the Throne that a number of people who commit crimes do so while on bail pending trial for other offenses. That fact has led many Bahamians, over the past several months, to advocate for the complete restriction of bail for those accused of serious offenses.
Isaacs added that the court cannot pay attention to the whims and fancies of the community.
He pointed out that it would be hard for the government to undo what has already been done.
"What happens when you create a precedence - you cannot re-shut the door. Once that floodgate is open, the water is going to go through. Having allowed bail for one you must then consider bail for all," he said.
Isaacs added that it is not an easy decision to grant bail for people accused of serious crimes. Isaacs noted that when considering bail, judges have to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the offense, and the prosecution's reasons why a judge should oppose bail.
He said the main reasons why bail is denied is if the accused is considered a flight risk, or if there is reason to believe that the accused will re-offend while on bail.
"But if no such evidence is produced to the court at the time when bail is being considered then there is no real reason to keep the person in custody," Isaacs said.
Evans had similar sentiments.
"I would suggest that [the accused] ought not to be given bail if there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to commit offenses while he is on bail because what that does is jeopardize the right to secure people in society and the protection of the law and the security of the [alleged victim]."
Evans compared the job of passing judgment on an accused criminal before the court convicts him or her to walking "a very tight rope".
"It's very difficult to do," he said. "I know a little about that. It's a very difficult job. The bottom line is this, the society cannot be left out in the equation. What we have in our country now is a situation where we're almost overrun by criminal activity. The numbers are startling — 28 murders in the first four months of the year. It's astounding."
He pointed out that the prosecutor would have to prove why bail should be restricted for an individual accused of a crime.
"So once the prosecutors do their job in that respect then perhaps the courts will be persuaded to say, 'look given the facts that I have before me, given the circumstances of this particular case, I have to deny this man bail because otherwise there is a likelihood that the protection of the law and the security of the society is going to be compromised by his release'. But you can't expect the judge to do that if you can't prove it before him. We don't run kangaroo courts around here."
May 3, 2010
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
While acknowledging that every person accused of committing a crime is entitled to apply for bail, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs said Saturday he would have no difficulty denying it to a person accused of a serious crime if the case is tried within a reasonable period of time.
Isaacs was reacting to the government's declaration in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring an amendment to Parliament which would further restrict the right to bail for people charged with serious crimes, and to limit the circumstances under which bail may be granted.
"The only difficulty I would have is if persons are left to languish in prison for inordinate periods of time," said Isaacs, who was speaking during a panel discussion on 'Crime and its effects on our community', which was held on the greens of Super Value food store in Winton Estates. The panel discussion, which was attended by scores of Bahamians, was a part of the police and the Eastern Community Association's Fun Fantastic Festival.
"If persons are brought to trial within a reasonable period of time I have no difficulty with them remaining until such time as they face their accusers," Isaacs said.
Isaacs told The Nassau Guardian following the panel discussion that in most cases accused criminals are left in prison for long periods of time before their cases come to trial.
"That's where I have a problem," he said.
Asked what he considers a reasonable time for a case to come before the Supreme Court, Isaacs said every case has to be evaluated individually based on the evidence.
Thomas Evans, QC, who was also a member of the panel, said he considers two or three years to be a reasonable amount of time.
"But the reality on the ground is that you're [not] getting a case through the system until about five or six years," Evans said.
During the panel discussion, Isaacs recalled one case where four individuals were on bail for 16 years before their case went to trial.
"Imagine if you will if those persons were not allowed on bail for 16 years," he said. "Imagine their sense of grievance. What would the community offer by way of compensation? There is no redress for a person who has to spend time at Her Majesty's Prison awaiting trial."
Acknowledging that crime is spiraling out of control, Isaacs said he understands the society's call for harsher measures.
"There are those who advocate no bail for those accused of crime and harsher punishment for those convicted of offenses," Isaacs said. "While there may be some efficacy in the effort to deter persons from committing certain offenses by the imposition of stiff penalties, when one seeks to deprive those alleged to have committed offenses of their liberty without the benefit of a trial one has overstepped the permissible bounds of response to crime unless one is willing to ensure such persons receive trials within a reasonable time."
The government noted in the Speech from the Throne that a number of people who commit crimes do so while on bail pending trial for other offenses. That fact has led many Bahamians, over the past several months, to advocate for the complete restriction of bail for those accused of serious offenses.
Isaacs added that the court cannot pay attention to the whims and fancies of the community.
He pointed out that it would be hard for the government to undo what has already been done.
"What happens when you create a precedence - you cannot re-shut the door. Once that floodgate is open, the water is going to go through. Having allowed bail for one you must then consider bail for all," he said.
Isaacs added that it is not an easy decision to grant bail for people accused of serious crimes. Isaacs noted that when considering bail, judges have to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the offense, and the prosecution's reasons why a judge should oppose bail.
He said the main reasons why bail is denied is if the accused is considered a flight risk, or if there is reason to believe that the accused will re-offend while on bail.
"But if no such evidence is produced to the court at the time when bail is being considered then there is no real reason to keep the person in custody," Isaacs said.
Evans had similar sentiments.
"I would suggest that [the accused] ought not to be given bail if there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to commit offenses while he is on bail because what that does is jeopardize the right to secure people in society and the protection of the law and the security of the [alleged victim]."
Evans compared the job of passing judgment on an accused criminal before the court convicts him or her to walking "a very tight rope".
"It's very difficult to do," he said. "I know a little about that. It's a very difficult job. The bottom line is this, the society cannot be left out in the equation. What we have in our country now is a situation where we're almost overrun by criminal activity. The numbers are startling — 28 murders in the first four months of the year. It's astounding."
He pointed out that the prosecutor would have to prove why bail should be restricted for an individual accused of a crime.
"So once the prosecutors do their job in that respect then perhaps the courts will be persuaded to say, 'look given the facts that I have before me, given the circumstances of this particular case, I have to deny this man bail because otherwise there is a likelihood that the protection of the law and the security of the society is going to be compromised by his release'. But you can't expect the judge to do that if you can't prove it before him. We don't run kangaroo courts around here."
May 3, 2010
thenassauguardian
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
PLP's Ryan Pinder wins Elizabeth following court ruling
tribune242:
1:16pm – The court has just ruled that 3/4 of the costs will be paid by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the remaining 1/4 by the 3rd respondent, the FNM's Dr Duane Sands.
1:14pm – Lead counsel for the FNM's Dr Duane Sands, Thomas Evans, QC, just spoke with The Tribune and said that once he's had a chance to read the ruling completely he will advise his client on whether further steps should be taken, and said there may well be further steps.
1:06pm – For clarification, the justices actually ruled that all 6 votes that had been protested on election day be counted. Five of them were cast for the PLP's Ryan Pinder, giving him a final 3 vote lead over the FNM's Dr Duane Sands. The other vote had been cast for the BDM's Cassius Stuart, but in no way affected the final outcome.
12:52pm – A loud eruption of cheering broke out when the PLP supporters waiting outside the courtroom heard that their candidate Ryan Pinder had been declared the winner of the Elizabeth constituency seat. PLP leader Perry Christie went outside during the break and was shaking hands with supporters.
12:50pm – Court has been adjourned for a few minutes to allow the judges to deliberate over who should pay costs for this case and how the costs should be divided. The argument has been made that the Parliamentary Commissioner's office should assume a significant portion of the costs as it turned out that the votes were protested because of errors in the registration process.
12:41pm – The proceedings continue with debate over who should be required to pay election court costs.
12pm – Senior Justice Anita Allen has just ruled that following the hearing and deliberation, all five protested votes will be counted. This ruling puts the PLP's Ryan Pinder ahead by three votes. Allen warned the packed courtroom that she would not tolerate any outbursts before she began and when the results were read, there was complete silence in the courtroom.
11:33am – Everyone involved in the Elizabeth by-election court case is now inside the courtroom and proceedings have begun. The courtroom is filled to capacity.
10:58am – A crowd of about 50 curious onlookers and supporters of both the Free National Movement and the Progressive Liberal Party have gathered outside the court hearing the Elizabeth by-election case.
Senior Justice Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs who have been presiding over the case have just arrived at court, but the two candidates vying for the parliamentary seat – FNM's Dr Duane Sands and PLP's Ryan Pinder have not been spotted.
When the case is scheduled to resume at 11:30 today, a ruling will be given as whether any of the five protested votes cast for Pinder will be counted. Pinder needs three votes to be declared the winner of the election. A two vote gain for Pinder would result in another election.
March 23,2010
tribune242
1:16pm – The court has just ruled that 3/4 of the costs will be paid by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the remaining 1/4 by the 3rd respondent, the FNM's Dr Duane Sands.
1:14pm – Lead counsel for the FNM's Dr Duane Sands, Thomas Evans, QC, just spoke with The Tribune and said that once he's had a chance to read the ruling completely he will advise his client on whether further steps should be taken, and said there may well be further steps.
1:06pm – For clarification, the justices actually ruled that all 6 votes that had been protested on election day be counted. Five of them were cast for the PLP's Ryan Pinder, giving him a final 3 vote lead over the FNM's Dr Duane Sands. The other vote had been cast for the BDM's Cassius Stuart, but in no way affected the final outcome.
12:52pm – A loud eruption of cheering broke out when the PLP supporters waiting outside the courtroom heard that their candidate Ryan Pinder had been declared the winner of the Elizabeth constituency seat. PLP leader Perry Christie went outside during the break and was shaking hands with supporters.
12:50pm – Court has been adjourned for a few minutes to allow the judges to deliberate over who should pay costs for this case and how the costs should be divided. The argument has been made that the Parliamentary Commissioner's office should assume a significant portion of the costs as it turned out that the votes were protested because of errors in the registration process.
12:41pm – The proceedings continue with debate over who should be required to pay election court costs.
12pm – Senior Justice Anita Allen has just ruled that following the hearing and deliberation, all five protested votes will be counted. This ruling puts the PLP's Ryan Pinder ahead by three votes. Allen warned the packed courtroom that she would not tolerate any outbursts before she began and when the results were read, there was complete silence in the courtroom.
11:33am – Everyone involved in the Elizabeth by-election court case is now inside the courtroom and proceedings have begun. The courtroom is filled to capacity.
10:58am – A crowd of about 50 curious onlookers and supporters of both the Free National Movement and the Progressive Liberal Party have gathered outside the court hearing the Elizabeth by-election case.
Senior Justice Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs who have been presiding over the case have just arrived at court, but the two candidates vying for the parliamentary seat – FNM's Dr Duane Sands and PLP's Ryan Pinder have not been spotted.
When the case is scheduled to resume at 11:30 today, a ruling will be given as whether any of the five protested votes cast for Pinder will be counted. Pinder needs three votes to be declared the winner of the election. A two vote gain for Pinder would result in another election.
March 23,2010
tribune242
Friday, March 19, 2010
FNM Lead attorney Thomas Evans QC: three protest votes must automatically be thrown out
tribune242:
LEAD attorney for FNM candidate Dr Duane Sands, Thomas Evans QC, yesterday argued in election court that of six protest votes cast in the Elizabeth by-election three must be automatically thrown out as the individual's names did not appear on the Elizabeth register on the day of the election.
"The evidence shows that three voters were not registered in Elizabeth. Two were in the adjacent Yamacraw and one was in Fox Hill. These voters plainly are not entitled to vote in the Elizabeth constituency and no question of retifcation of register with any of them," Mr Evans told the election court.
He further argued that in addition to these three votes - that of Voter A, D and F - the vote of Voter B should not be counted as his date of birth on his driver's licence which he sought to use to vote differed to that on the register and he never appeared before the court to explain why.
This left two protest votes, that of Voters C and E, which Mr Evans agreed should be counted. Philip Davis, lead attorney for PLP candidate, Ryan Pinder, had proposed on Wednesday that all five protest votes cast for his party's candidate should be upheld as valid.
But Mr Evans contended that the court can only consider counting the votes of those voters for whom clerical errors or omissions caused them to have to cast their ballot on a coloured or protest ballot, not those who did not appear on the register at all as the register should be consider "conclusive" on the day of the election.
He further stated that for the court to "stray" into the question of whether certain voters were resident in the constituency or not would cause the court to "overstep" its mandate in this particular matter.
The attorney made these comments as he gave his final submissions to the court on behalf of his client, FNM candidate Dr Duane Sands. Some had expected that once Mr Evans concluded his submissions today that judges would leave the court to deliberate and come to a conclusion on the matter as early as today. But yesterday when Mr Evans took his seat having made his final submissions relative to the votes, lead attorney for PLP candidate Ryan Pinder, Philip Davis stood to counter some of the points he had made and this is expected to continue tomorrow when the court resumes at 10.30am.
At present it is not entirely clear when a conclusion to the case will come, and it is possible that the matter may drag on until next week.
In the February 16 by-election in Elizabeth, Dr Duane Sands won 1,501 ordinary votes and Mr Pinder got 1,499. Mr Pinder made an application to the court to determine the validity of five "protest" votes cast for him, to see whether they could be added to the official vote count and therefore change the outcome of the election, making him the representative for the constituency.
Mr Evans spoke at some length about Voter A, whose vote he ultimately said should be discounted.
That voter claimed she registered at a foodstore then gave evidence to the court that she found that she had been "put in the wrong constituency" (Fox Hill not Elizabeth). She said she and some friends and family members net with Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel to have the situation rectified.
However, Mr Evans drew that claim into question, and told the court he was "sorely tempted to ask you to dismiss" the evidence that she met with Mr Bethel and sought to have the discrepancy changed.
The attorney said this was because Errol Bethel was not questioned on this alleged meeting while he gave his evidence and because there were varying and significant differences between the evidence of voter A and other supporting witnesses connected to her, as well as between her own evidence at different times.
He noted that Mr Bethel said that he had no record of Voter A having attended his office to change her voter's card. There was no documentary evidence and her oath was unamended, said Mr Evans.
"Normally if a change was made it would be reflected in all of the documents relevant to that voter," said Mr Evans.
"The flood or accumulation of contradictions in the evidence is irrefutable proof of their lack of credibility," he said of voter A and associated witnesses.
"This court is invited to find that Voter A never made any such application or attendance at the Parliamentary Registrar's office,that Voter A voluntarily placed herself in the Fox Hill constituency by giving herself the address North Pine Barren Road and that her vote should not be allowed," proposed Mr Evans.
He added the inconsistencies raise the possibility of her voter's card being fraudulent. "I'm not saying anyone is guilty of fraud, but it is a possibility."
"We would say that from all the evidence available that the voter's card may very well not be genuine."
"If it is believed, you may direct further investigations along those lines."
In relation to Voter B, who was made to cast a protest vote after he could not produce a voter's card but only a driver's license which had a birth date upon it which differed from the date of birth on the register, Mr Evans said that because the voter has not appeared before the court or provided any evidence or explanation for the differences his vote should not be allowed.
"We have no evidence to show that the holder of the license is the same person on the register," said Mr Evans.
In relation to voter C, Mr Evans said that there was an inconsistency between the date of birth on her driver's license and on the counter foil and register. However, in this case Mr Evans said his client does not "suggest it can't be counted."
In relation to Voter D, Mr Evans said she does not live in the Elizabeth constituency and is registered in Yamacraw. "It follows that her vote can't be counted," he said. Voter D was removed from the register by the parliamentary commissioner.
Voter E, Mr Evans said she was on the Elizabeth register and had a voter's card and therefore she was "no doubt entitled" to vote. He said that the question of whether she was in fact an Elizabeth resident was a separate question, but could not be determined as part of this court matter.
With regard to Voter F, he said her vote should not be counted as she did not have a voter's card or appear on the Elizabeth register.
Mr Davis, beginning to respond to Mr Evan's submissions, said that if the court accepts the assertions made by Mr Evans it would "have startling results."
The attorney charged that the inconsistencies in the testimony of Voter A and other associated witnesses in fact make their evidence more believable.
If all of the witnesses had given the same story, one would suspect they had been "coached," he said.
"One has to look at the inconsistencies in regard to the passage of time," Mr Davis said.
"If a husband doesn't remember the date of his marriage, does that mean he didn't get married?" he asked.
March 19, 2010
tribune242
LEAD attorney for FNM candidate Dr Duane Sands, Thomas Evans QC, yesterday argued in election court that of six protest votes cast in the Elizabeth by-election three must be automatically thrown out as the individual's names did not appear on the Elizabeth register on the day of the election.
"The evidence shows that three voters were not registered in Elizabeth. Two were in the adjacent Yamacraw and one was in Fox Hill. These voters plainly are not entitled to vote in the Elizabeth constituency and no question of retifcation of register with any of them," Mr Evans told the election court.
He further argued that in addition to these three votes - that of Voter A, D and F - the vote of Voter B should not be counted as his date of birth on his driver's licence which he sought to use to vote differed to that on the register and he never appeared before the court to explain why.
This left two protest votes, that of Voters C and E, which Mr Evans agreed should be counted. Philip Davis, lead attorney for PLP candidate, Ryan Pinder, had proposed on Wednesday that all five protest votes cast for his party's candidate should be upheld as valid.
But Mr Evans contended that the court can only consider counting the votes of those voters for whom clerical errors or omissions caused them to have to cast their ballot on a coloured or protest ballot, not those who did not appear on the register at all as the register should be consider "conclusive" on the day of the election.
He further stated that for the court to "stray" into the question of whether certain voters were resident in the constituency or not would cause the court to "overstep" its mandate in this particular matter.
The attorney made these comments as he gave his final submissions to the court on behalf of his client, FNM candidate Dr Duane Sands. Some had expected that once Mr Evans concluded his submissions today that judges would leave the court to deliberate and come to a conclusion on the matter as early as today. But yesterday when Mr Evans took his seat having made his final submissions relative to the votes, lead attorney for PLP candidate Ryan Pinder, Philip Davis stood to counter some of the points he had made and this is expected to continue tomorrow when the court resumes at 10.30am.
At present it is not entirely clear when a conclusion to the case will come, and it is possible that the matter may drag on until next week.
In the February 16 by-election in Elizabeth, Dr Duane Sands won 1,501 ordinary votes and Mr Pinder got 1,499. Mr Pinder made an application to the court to determine the validity of five "protest" votes cast for him, to see whether they could be added to the official vote count and therefore change the outcome of the election, making him the representative for the constituency.
Mr Evans spoke at some length about Voter A, whose vote he ultimately said should be discounted.
That voter claimed she registered at a foodstore then gave evidence to the court that she found that she had been "put in the wrong constituency" (Fox Hill not Elizabeth). She said she and some friends and family members net with Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel to have the situation rectified.
However, Mr Evans drew that claim into question, and told the court he was "sorely tempted to ask you to dismiss" the evidence that she met with Mr Bethel and sought to have the discrepancy changed.
The attorney said this was because Errol Bethel was not questioned on this alleged meeting while he gave his evidence and because there were varying and significant differences between the evidence of voter A and other supporting witnesses connected to her, as well as between her own evidence at different times.
He noted that Mr Bethel said that he had no record of Voter A having attended his office to change her voter's card. There was no documentary evidence and her oath was unamended, said Mr Evans.
"Normally if a change was made it would be reflected in all of the documents relevant to that voter," said Mr Evans.
"The flood or accumulation of contradictions in the evidence is irrefutable proof of their lack of credibility," he said of voter A and associated witnesses.
"This court is invited to find that Voter A never made any such application or attendance at the Parliamentary Registrar's office,that Voter A voluntarily placed herself in the Fox Hill constituency by giving herself the address North Pine Barren Road and that her vote should not be allowed," proposed Mr Evans.
He added the inconsistencies raise the possibility of her voter's card being fraudulent. "I'm not saying anyone is guilty of fraud, but it is a possibility."
"We would say that from all the evidence available that the voter's card may very well not be genuine."
"If it is believed, you may direct further investigations along those lines."
In relation to Voter B, who was made to cast a protest vote after he could not produce a voter's card but only a driver's license which had a birth date upon it which differed from the date of birth on the register, Mr Evans said that because the voter has not appeared before the court or provided any evidence or explanation for the differences his vote should not be allowed.
"We have no evidence to show that the holder of the license is the same person on the register," said Mr Evans.
In relation to voter C, Mr Evans said that there was an inconsistency between the date of birth on her driver's license and on the counter foil and register. However, in this case Mr Evans said his client does not "suggest it can't be counted."
In relation to Voter D, Mr Evans said she does not live in the Elizabeth constituency and is registered in Yamacraw. "It follows that her vote can't be counted," he said. Voter D was removed from the register by the parliamentary commissioner.
Voter E, Mr Evans said she was on the Elizabeth register and had a voter's card and therefore she was "no doubt entitled" to vote. He said that the question of whether she was in fact an Elizabeth resident was a separate question, but could not be determined as part of this court matter.
With regard to Voter F, he said her vote should not be counted as she did not have a voter's card or appear on the Elizabeth register.
Mr Davis, beginning to respond to Mr Evan's submissions, said that if the court accepts the assertions made by Mr Evans it would "have startling results."
The attorney charged that the inconsistencies in the testimony of Voter A and other associated witnesses in fact make their evidence more believable.
If all of the witnesses had given the same story, one would suspect they had been "coached," he said.
"One has to look at the inconsistencies in regard to the passage of time," Mr Davis said.
"If a husband doesn't remember the date of his marriage, does that mean he didn't get married?" he asked.
March 19, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)