– dismissed elections commission chairman seeking judicial review
– in Bridgetown
PRIME MINISTER Baldwin Spencer is now facing a court battle over claims that he has “flagrantly undermined” the independence and integrity of the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC). And, by so doing, threatens the future of electoral democracy in that CARICOM member state.
This is the latest development in a bitter political saga involving Spencer’s United Progressive Party (UPP), Governor General Dame Louise Lake-Tack, Lester Bird’s Antigua Labour Party (ALP), and the Electoral Commission. A legal showdown is set to begin today with an application to the court requesting a judicial review of political decisions that seriously affect the Commission.

The legal initiative includes a request for interim injunctive relief to prevent newly-appointed Commission chairman Juno Samuel from functioning in that capacity, as a consequence of the “unlawful removal” from the position of Sir Gerald Watt.

Further, to prevent the new chairman from signing off on relevant documents pertaining to the Commission’s functions, and which could be detrimental to its independence, until the reappointment of Sir Gerald, now unilaterally reduced to an ordinary member, and contrary to the recommendations in a report by a high-level tribunal.

Initiating the legal battle against the Prime Minister today will be Sir Gerald Watt, himself a respected legal luminary.

He had served as chairman of the Electoral Commission for the March 2009 general election that Spencer’s incumbent UPP won with a two-seat majority, but the results of which had quickly escalated into a raging controversy over voting irregularities that led to a series of petitions in the court.

By March 31, 2010, High Court judge Louise Blenman was to rule  in favour of election petitions from the ALP, declaring in the process vacancy of three of the UPP’s parliamentary seats, including that of Prime Minister Spencer, and ordering the conduct of by-elections.

ENTER A TRIBUNAL
Political manoeuvrings succeeded in keeping afloat the UPP’s administration with infrequent meetings of the parliament, while the electoral dispute engaged the attention of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, in the face of continuing controversies that resulted from political attempts, according to the Commission, to violate its independence under provisions of the Representation of the People Act, Prime Minister Spencer requested the Governor General to establish a tribunal to investigate the workings of three of the five Commissioners.
The trio included Chairman Watt (originally appointed on the recommendation of Spencer); Deputy Chairman Nathaniel James (appointee of the opposition ALP); and Lionel Hurst (who was not a member at the time of the March 12, 2008 general election).

The tribunal was ready with its report for the Governor General within three weeks and before the Court of Appeal met to deliver its ruling against judge Blenman’s decision for the holding of three by-elections in constituencies won by the UPP.

Both the Governor General and Prime Minister failed to make available a copy of the tribunal’s report to the Opposition Leader, as requested and expected.

However, while the report from the tribunal had made clear that “no wrongs” had been committed either by the Commission’s chairman or his deputy, the Governor General was to launch an unprecedented verbal blast against Chairman Watt in a televised broadcast on December 22 last year.
Unprecedented, in the judgement of independent observers, since no Governor General of the country had ever indulged in any personal public criticisms of public officers.

Two days later, on Christmas Eve, the Governor General went further, as advised by the Prime Minister, to instruct Chairman Watt against returning to the office of the Electoral Commission before this past Monday, January 10.
Those knowledgeable in the country’s constitution and regulations governing the functions of the Electoral Commission contend that the Governor General has “no authority in law” to prevent Chairman Watt from performing his duties, moreso since he had been given an unqualified clearance by a high-level tribunal.
When, therefore, Sir Gerald ignored the Governor General’s instruction and turned up for duty, consistent with the decision of the tribunal that he should be reinstituted to his post, the government sent the police to block him from doing so.

HUMILIATION
This humiliation of Chairman Watt was perceived also as humiliation for a now crippled Electoral Commission, a vital constitutional body in the conduct of free and fair elections and viewed as a threat to multi-party parliamentary democracy.
Opposition Leader and former Prime Minister Bird, in a radio broadcast last weekend, lost no time in declaring the respective actions involving both Prime Minister and Governor General to be serious violations of the constitution, and claimed that the development further underscored the “threat to democratic governance” in the country.
For his part, Sir Gerald Watt, having been the victim of a political decapitation as the Commission’s chairman, was in no mood to mince words.
“The actions of both the Prime Minister and Governor General”, he declared, “are unlawful and run contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, of 2001 and 2002…I would advise the Prime Minister to avail himself of the services of an experienced and competent attorney as he would need one very shortly…”
Well, in this ongoing political saga, at the core of which is preservation of electoral democracy, we must now await developments following today’s scheduled application to the court for a judicial review of actions taken by the government in relation to the functioning of the Electoral Commission.