Dereck Achong
The Independent Liberal Party’s (ILP) lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill has ended abruptly.
After being dismissed twice at a preliminary stage last year lawyers representing the party yesterday petitioned the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
After a brief hearing, Appeal Court judges—Allan Mendonca, Rajendra Narine and Gregory Smith—ruled the party had not raised any valid grounds to appeal.
They also agreed with the previous decisions of High Court Judge Frank Seepersad and three of their colleagues who thought the lawsuit was premature as the legislation was still pending before the Parliament and that any intervention of the court would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
The issue was first raised by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC who represented his office in past hearings.
The constitutional motion filed on behalf of two ILP members—Sherwin Mitchell and Dane Francis—was initiated the day after the bill was passed in the Senate on last August 29.
The bill introduces several sweeping changes to the electoral process, including the right of recall and a two-term limit for prime ministers.
A provision for runoff polls in constituencies where no candidate receives more than 50 per cent of votes was met with uproar after it was revealed it was not raised during public consultations on constitutional reform.
While the legislation has been reverted to the House of Representatives for amendments, Mitchell and Francis are claiming once it receives presidential assent and becomes law, it will offend their constitutional right to political expression, both as electors and as potential candidates.
The ILP was represented by its deputy political leader Rekha Ramjit, while Jagdeo Singh and Kelvin Ramkissoon appeared for the State.