[1] Hon. Mark Brantley (Leader of the Opposition) [2] Hon. Eugene Hamilton [3] Hon. Shawn Richards [4] Hon. Vance Armory [5] Hon. Sam Condor [6] Hon. Timothy Harris Claimants/Respondents v [1] Hon. Curtis Martin (Speaker of the National Assembly) [2] Hon. Denzil Douglas (Prime Minister) [3] Hon. Dr. Asim Martin (Deputy Prime Minister) [4] Hon. Patrice Nisbett [5] Hon. Marcella Liburd [6] Hon. Glen Phillip [7] Hon. Richard Skerrit [8] Hon. Nigel Carty [9] Hon. Jason Hamilton [10] Attorney General of St. Chrisptopher and Nevis Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Ramdhani J. (Ag.) |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2014 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2014] ECSC J0212-1 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SKBHCV 2013/0090 |
| Date | 12 February 2014 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
A.D. 2013
CLAIM NO. SKBHCV 2013/0090
In the Matter of Sections 52(6) of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis
And in the Matter of an Application for Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Relief pursuant to Section 96 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis
Mr. Douglas Mendes, SC leading Mr. Vincent Byron instructed by Mr. MacClure Taylor for the Claimants/Respondents
Mr. Anthony Astaphan, SC instructed by Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo for 1 st Defendant/Applicant
Dr. Henry L. Browne, QC leading Mr. Sylvester Anthony instructed by Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo for the 2 nd–9 th Defendants/Applicants
Lord Peter Goldsmith, QC PC leading the Solicitor General, Mrs. Simone BullenThompson and Ms. Nisharma Rattan-Mack for the 10 th Defendant/Applicant
Constitutional Originating Motion — Parliamentary Privilege — Internal Affairs of Parliament — Whether the Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the Internal Affairs of Parliament — Whether Intervention Permissible in Cases of Breach of Provision of the Constitution.
Constitutional Rights — Implied Constitution Right — Method of Discovering Implied Rights — Text and Structure of the Constitution — Whether Context Within Which the Constitution Drafted Relevant
Motion of No Confidence in Government — Constitutional Structure of Government — Constitutional and Parliamentary Democracy — Whether Right to Govern Dependant on Electoral Mandate Given by Support of Majority of Elected Representatives — Whether Expressed Constitutional Urgency Where Vote of No Confidence in Government by Majority of Elected Representatives — Whether Substantive and Procedural Implied Right in Section 52(6) of the St. Kitts and Nevis Constitution that Motion of No Confidence be Debated with Reasonable Time as a Matter of Urgency.
Relief under Section 96 of the St. Kitts and Nevis Constitution — Extent of Such Relief — Applicable Principles — Discretion to Grant Declaration — Whether Relief May include Injunctive Relief — Whether Section 96 allows the Grant of Injunction Against the Speaker or Members of the National Assembly in matters Relating to the Conduct of Internal Affairs.
The claimants in the substantive matter are elected members of the National Assembly who are complaining that they have been unable to cause the Speaker of the Assembly to place a motion of no confidence in the government of St. Kitts and Nevis on the Order Paper so that it may be debated and voted on. Their originating motion was filed on the 3 April 2013, in which they seek constitutional relief against not only the Speaker but also the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet, alleging that these latter persons have been responsible for the failure.
Almost immediately following the filing of this originating motion, the 1 st to the 9 th defendants and the 10 th defendant filed separate applications to strike out the underlying originating motion and for a number of declarations.
These applications have raised jurisdictional objections, and have made it necessary to decide as preliminary legal issues whether the court has any power or discretion to intervene in the internal affairs of the National Assembly, and whether there is to be implied in section 52(6) of the Constitution, a right given to every Member of the National Assembly to request that a motion of no confidence in the government be placed on the Order Paper of the Assembly to be debated within a reasonable time as a matter of urgency, and there if there was such a right, whether the court has power pursuant to section 96 of the Constitution to grant declarations and injunctive relief against the Speaker of the National Assembly in relation to matters of internal procedure of the Assembly. Finally, on the question going to jurisdiction, the court is tasked with considering whether the motion of no confidence itself is a conforming motion, and if it is not, whether the entire originating motion should be struck out on this basis alone.
The applications have also raised an issue as to whether the Hon. Prime Minister and Members of his Cabinet could in the circumstances of this case be properly joined as parties for any failure of the Speaker in relation to matters of internal procedure of the Assembly.
Held, removing the 2 nd to the 10 th defendants as parties to the originating motion and granting their costs to be assessed if not agreed, but refusing all other declarations sought on the two applications, and allowing the matter to proceed against the 1 st defendant, that:
-
1. It is not part of the court's functions to make binding statements as to whether a motion to be laid before the National Assembly is of a particular kind or not. When a request is made in the prescribed manner for a motion to be placed on the Order Paper, the Speaker, for the purpose of determining whether and what kind of priority to accord the motion, is tasked with making a determination whether the particular motion is of the kind it proclaims itself to be. If, on its face, it is expressed to be a motion of no confidence, the Speaker ought not to engage in making pronouncements whether it has met a particular threshold or not, or whether or not he is satisfied that it is that kind of motion. He should be guided by what it proclaims itself to be, treat it as that kind of motion, and place it before the Assembly, for it (the Assembly), on the debates and the vote, to make those final determinations as to its nature.
Considered: Conacher v Canada (Prime Minister) [2010] F.C.R. 411; Attorney General of Guyana v David Granger CM No. 94 of 2012 High Court of Guyana.
-
2. The finding that it is for the Assembly ultimately to discover the true nature of a motion, does not of itself, bar this court from considering the other issues which have arisen. On these applications, and the originating motion, the court should rely on what the motion on it face proclaims itself to be, for the purpose of addressing the other issues raised on these applications and the originating motion.
-
3. The St Kitts and Nevis Constitution, like all other written constitutions styled on the Westminster model, has displaced the common law doctrine of general competence and unqualified supremacy of Parliament. The National Assembly's right of control over the internal management of its own affairs is a privilege which history has shown, is one which is necessary as being essential to the discharge to its lawful functions. Accordingly, in a constitutional supremacy, the Assembly is not completely immune from the scrutiny of the court, which has a limited right to intervene to ensure that the Assembly has not acted, or is not acting in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.
Considered: Bahamas Methodist Church v Symmonette (2005) 32 WIR 1; Hughes v Roger Civil Suits Nos. 99 & 101 (Anguilla); The Speaker v De LilleCase No. 297 of 1998; Attorney General of Guyana v David Granger and Raphael Trotman CM No. 94 of 2012 High Court of Guyana; Bradlaugh v Gosset 12 QB 271; Burdett v Abbot (1810) 104 ER 554; Smith v Mutasa et al [1990] LRC 87; Rediffision (Hong Kong) Ltd. v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136
Distinguished: The Prime Minister of Dominica and Others v Hector John and Others Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013 (Dominica); Nicholls Esprit and Others v Speaker of the House and Others Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2008; Sakeasi Butadroka v The Attorney General [1993] FLR 115
-
4. The St. Kitts and Nevis Constitution establishes a constitutional democracy defined by an effective representative government elected by free, fair and periodic elections. In this constitutional structure, the executive authority of government is vested in Her Majesty, but is for all practical purposes exercised by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The Constitution expressly provides that the appointment of the Prime Minister is informed by the majority of elected Members of the Assembly, and expressly clothes him with considerable executive authority giving him inter alia, the power of appointment and dismissal of all Members of the Cabinet, and what business of the Government, if any, each Member of his Cabinet should be given. Under this system of Government, the term of Prime Minister and his Cabinet is only validated by the support of a majority of the elected Representatives of the Assembly; it is the mandate of the people, through the elected representatives that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is given the right of government. By a number of expressed provisions, the Constitution expressly stipulate that if a majority of the elected Representatives vote in favour of a motion of no confidence in the government, a Prime Minister and his Government will cease to have the right to govern. The Constitution expressly not only provides that on such vote the Prime Minister is to either resign or else Parliament is dissolved, but it also express an urgency that should follow such a vote of no confidence. It would therefore make nonsense of these provisions if a majority of members of the elected Representatives may have lost confidence in the Government, and being ready and willing to vote on such a motion have requested that such a motion be placed on the Order Paper, but no steps are being...
To continue reading
Request your trial