By Jolly Green

Having
seen the performance in parliament by the ULP regarding the recent
special warrants, farce I decided to take a look at what is
happening.

I read a
book on the subject of breaking the constitutional rules, as
explicitly laid out in the constitution. 'The Tyranny of Good
Intentions' by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton
emphasizing the influence of William Blackstone's "Rights of
Englishmen." The backbone of the British legal system that once
was the envy of the world. Unfortunately in such places as Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, laws have gradually got bastardized.
Some Laws have even been made that are made to protect the
wrongdoings of the ULP and some of its supporters’ against
prosecution.

Unfortunately,
the rule of law in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has evaporated
into the practice by the lawbreaking ultra left-wing political Unity
Labour Party. It should be against the law for the government to
break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In the early twenty-first
century internationally, a long-standing dirty little secret still
exists among public officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors, and
police. The government is not bound to obey its own laws. They can
make others follow constitutional rules, but no one can make this
government do the same. Of course, unless the matter is brought to
the house to be voted on, and two-thirds of the house supporting the
motion.

Not a
constitutional matter, but a major law, which has been adopted by
almost every country worldwide, ‘PACE,’ was removed from the
statute books of SVG by the ULP. PACE ensured that the accused were
treated properly during arrest, questioning and pre-trial internment.
It ensured the police behaved in certain ways, and their behavior
monitored.

ULP
government officials at all levels routinely violate the law, commit
felonies, tell lies, treat citizens in ways contrary to human rights.
Citizens have had their businesses destroyed for simply changing
support from ULP to NDP, revenge, which includes cruel and malicious
treatment. Government ministers and MPs have behaved in such ways,
so cynical as to destroy the confidence that any of us could have in
the law. It's common for the SVG police to force guilty pleas from
the so-called accused by beating them and threatening physical
violence. In doing so, the police under ULP jurisdiction, are often
given honors and awards and even promotion.

Land has
been taken for Argyle airport, and the owners have not been paid, the
government have found ways of frustrating the owners from receiving
payment.

It's
also common practice for the police to obtain search warrants under
doubtful means to be able to make fishing trips in people's homes and
business premises to try and find not just evidence of lawbreaking,
but also political evidence for politicians. Here is how it works.
The police write a warrant which states the reason for searching the
said premises are

1/
search for arms and ammunition

2/
search for illicit and illegal drugs

3/
search for paperwork

4/
search for electronics

The
magistrate signing has to give them the signed warrant because of the
first two items listed in the warrant. But the police are only
looking for the last two items, paperwork and electronics [files and
letters, computers and storage devices]. They are on a fishing trip.
They do not even need a warrant if they have reason to believe the
premises contain arms and ammunition and drugs. So many of the police
searches are illegal searches made against a warrant containing false
statements to the magistrate. Most of these illegal searches are
carried out under political orders wrapped up to make them look like
criminal matters. The police play the game and take the orders and do
the dirty political work.

I
wonder, if there is something highly illegal about these original
payments for which the special warrants were required, otherwise
wouldn’t they have been declared a long time ago. My mind goes to
PM's broadcast Statement about continuing the work of Maurice Bishop?
Was this an attempt to not keep two sets of books, but to keep one
set and simply discard the rest?

The NDP
should demand an enquiry, after all this was an extremely serious
breach of the constitution. It’s like robbing a bank and admitting
doing it four years later, expecting no consequence for committing
the original crime.

There
are absolute oodles of case law and procedures in and throughout the
Commonwealth. Perhaps even advice from the Commonwealth legal
department should have been initially requested by the NDP.

Going
into parliament and trying to make good a breach retrospectively is
simply not good enough because the breach in this case was long out
of date for rectification. It was quite obviously a deliberate
breach; the figures are too great to be forgotten matters. If payment
had been sought at the time of payment the opposition could have had
a transparent view if the payment was completely bonafide, with
corrective action five years after the event they have little
possibility of proper investigation.

It, was
not until the NDP complained, that any action was taken in trying to
rectify this matter. But what would have happened if the NDP had not
brought it to the attention of Parliament? Would it all have been
lost in time? Or continued to be hidden from view? Some of the
payments may be for events that never happened and the money stolen.

There
are some specific articles in the Vincentian Constitution

Alteration
of Constitutions and Supreme Court Order.

38. (1)
Parliament may alter any of the provisions of this Constitution or of
the Supreme Court Order in the manner specified in the following
provisions of this section.

(2) A
bill to alter any of the provisions of this Constitution or of the
Supreme Court Order shall not be regarded as being passed by the
House unless on its final reading the bill is supported by the votes
of not less than two-thirds of all the Representatives.

(3) A
bill to alter this section, the Schedule to this Constitution or any
of the Provisions of this Constitution specified in Part 1 of that
Schedule or any of the provisions of the Courts Order specified in
Part 2 of that Schedule shall not be submitted to the
Governor-General for his assent unless-

a. there
has been an interval of not less than ninety days between the
introduction of the bill in the House and the beginning of the
proceedings in the House on the second reading of the bill; and

b. after
it has been passed by the House the bill has been approved on a
referendum by not less than two-thirds of all the votes validly cast
on that referendum.

(4) The
provisions of paragraph (b.) of subsection (3) of this section shall
not apply in relation to any bill to alter-

a.
section 98 of this Constitution in order to give effect to any
agreement between Saint Vincent and the United Kingdom concerning
appeals from any court having jurisdiction in Saint Vincent to Her
Majesty in Council;

b. any
of the provisions of the Supreme Court Order in order to give effect
to any international agreement on which Saint Vincent is a party
relating to the Supreme Court or any other court (or any officer or
authority having functions in respect of any such court) constituted
in common for Saint Vincent and for other countries also parties to
the agreement.

(5)
Every person who, at the time when the referendum is held, would be
entitled to vote for the purpose of electing Representatives shall be
entitled to vote on a referendum held for the purposes of this
section in accordance with such procedures as may be prescribed by
Parliament for the purposes of the referendum and no other person
shall be entitled so to vote.

(6) In
any referendum for the purposes of this section the votes shall be
given by ballot in such manner as not to disclose how any particular
person votes.

(7) The
conduct of any referendum for the purposes of this section shall be
the responsibility of the Supervisor of Elections and the provisions
of subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 34 of this Constitution
shall apply in relation to the exercise by the Supervisor of
Elections or by any other officer of his functions with respect to a
referendum as they apply in relation to the exercise of his functions
with respect to elections of Representatives.

(8) a. A
bill to alter any of the provisions of this Constitution or of the
Supreme Court Order shall not be submitted to the Governor-General
for his assent unless it is accompanied by a certificate under the
hand of the Speaker that the provisions of subsection (2) of this
section have been complied with and, where a referendum has been held
in pursuance of subsection (3)(b.) of this section, by a certificate
under the hand of the Supervisor of Elections stating the results of
the referendum.

b. The
certificate of the Speaker under this subsection shall be conclusive
that the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section have
been complied with and shall not be enquired into in any court of
law.

c. In
this subsection references to the Speaker shall, if the person
holding the office of Speaker is for any reason unable to perform the
functions of his office and no other person is performing them,
include references to the Deputy Speaker.

(9) In
this Section and the Schedule to this Constitution references to any
of the provisions of this constitution or the Supreme Court Order
include references to any law that alters that provision.

CHAPTER
VIII JUDICIAL PROVISIONS

Original
jurisdiction of High Court in constitutional questions.

96. (1)
Subject to the provisions of section 22(2), 38(8)(b), 102(2) and
105(10) of this Constitution, any person who alleges that any
provisions of this Constitution (other than a provision of Chapter 1
thereof) has been or is being contravened may, if he has a relevant
interest, apply to the High Court for a declaration and for relief
under this section.

(2) The
High Court shall have jurisdiction on an application made under this
section to determine whether any provision of this Constitution
(other than a provision of Chapter 1 thereof) has been or is being
contravened and to make a declaration accordingly.

(3)
Where the High Court makes a declaration under this section that a
provision of this Constitution has been or is being contravened and
the person on whose application the declaration is made has also
applied for relief, the High Court may grant to that person such
remedy as it considers appropriate, being a remedy available
generally under any law in proceedings in the High Court.

(4) The
Chief Justice may make rules with respect to the practice and
procedure of the High Court in relation to the jurisdiction and
powers conferred on the Court by or under this section, including
provisions with respect to the time within which any application
under this section may be made.

(5) A
person shall be regarded as having a relevant interest for the
purpose of an application under this section only if the
contravention of this Constitution alleged by him is such as to
affect his interests.

(6) The
rights conferred on a person by this section to apply for a
declaration and relief in respect of an alleged contravention of this
Constitution shall be in addition to any other action in respect of
the same matter that may be available to that person under any law.

(7)
Nothing in this section shall confer jurisdiction on the High Court
to hear or determine any such question as is referred to in section
36 of this Constitution.

Reference
of constitutional question to High Court.

97. (1)
Where any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution
arises in any court of law established for Saint Vincent (other than
the Court of Appeal, the High Court or a court martial) and the court
is of opinion that the question involves a substantial question of
law, the court shall refer the question to the High Court.

(2)
Where any question is referred to the High Court in pursuance of this
section, the High Court shall give its decision upon the question and
the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the case in
accordance with that decision or, if the decisions is the subject of
an appeal to the Court of Appeal or to Her Majesty in Council, in
accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal or, as the case
may be, of Her Majesty in Council.

So there
was provision but were they properly acted on by the NDP, were they
harsh enough? Were they too forgiving?

Jolly Green

END

DISCLAMER: The opinion, belief and viewpoint expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinion, belief and viewpoint of iNews Cayman/ieyenews.com or official policies of iNews Cayman/ieyenews.com