The Independent Liberal Party (ILP) now faces the prospect that its lawsuit challenging the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill may be dismissed before getting off the ground. When the case came up for its first hearing before Justice Frank Seepersad in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, the Office of the Attorney General applied for the lawsuit to be immediately struck out.
In an unusual move, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, SC, donned his court robes for the first time since assuming office in 2010 and personally led the State’s legal team at the hearing. Ramlogan’s office, which is charged with the responsibility of defending the State in legal proceedings, is normally represented by either internal staff or private practitioners retained for their expertise in complex cases.
In his submissions in support of the application, Ramlogan claimed the lawsuit was pre-emptive and premature as the bill was yet to be passed by Parliament and sent to the President for his assent. He said the lawsuit might infringe on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers as it was calling on the Judiciary to intervene on a matter which was still being debated by Parliament.
“It would be highly improper for there to be an unjustified incursion into the legislative process whilst the matter is pending in the bosom of the Parliament,” Ramlogan said. While he said Parliament was free to continue to tweak and debate the legislation if the case was allowed to proceed, Ramlogan said the bill would likely lapse, as the Government would not proceed out of courtesy to the court.
ILP deputy political leader Rekha Ramjit, who is leading the party’s legal team, responded by asking for a two-week adjournment to prepare a response to Ramlogan’s application. Ramlogan firmly opposed the request, as he said the case required urgency because it dealt with the alleged breach of two ILP members’ constitutional rights.
Seepersad agreed with Ramlogan and ordered Ramjit to file her submissions by next Friday. The judge is expected to rule on the issue on October 3 before the substantive case resumes three days later. Questioned by reporters over his presence in court, Ramlogan said he took a personal interest because of the important constitutional changes that were being challenged.
“I was and will always remain a lawyer. In fact I miss the courts very much. I intend to ensure the State is adequately and appropriately represented in matters that concern the architecture of the Constitution,” Ramlogan said. He said his legal team, which includes attorneys Kevin Ramkisson and Jagdeo Singh, had researched the issue extensively and was ready to defend against the lawsuit. ILP chairman Jack Warner was in court but did not speak to reporters afterwards.
About the case
The constitutional motion lawsuit filed on behalf of two ILP members—Sherwin Mitchell and Dane Francis—was initiated the day after the bill was passed by the Senate on 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 national uproar after it was revealed that the measure was not raised during public consultations on constitutional reform.
While the legislation was reverted to the House of Representatives for amendments, Mitchell and Francis are claiming that once it receives presidential assent and becomes law, it will offend their constitutional right to political expression, both as electors and as potential candidates.
History
Ramlogan is not the first Attorney General to directly represent the State in legal proceedings. In 1972, then AG Karl Hudson-Phillips (now deceased) prosecuted black power activist Abdul “Michael X” Malick for the murders of Joseph Skerritt and British socialite Gale Ann Benson. Malick, born Michael de Freitas, was eventually convicted and hanged in 1975.
