CATEGORY:LEGAL MATTER
----------------------------

By Trevor Thwaites (Inside Grenada correspondent)


ST.GEORGE’S, Grenada - Contrary to reports appearing in the media last week, stating that Member of Parliament for the Town of St George, the Hon. Peter David has won the case brought against him by the government (challenging his eligibility to sit in the House of Parliament), this is far from the truth. That’s according to Legal Advisor to the Grenada Government, Hugh Wildman. “The issue as to Mr David’s qualification to sit in the parliament of Grenada, or whether he is sitting there legally, has not been determined by the Court as yet”, Wildman told reporters at a press conference earlier on this month in the city.

“In fact I make bold to say that when we get to the stage to determine whether Mr David is sitting in the parliament legally we are pretty sure, we are confident that he is not sitting there legally and will get the declaration to that effect”, Wildman emphasized. He said that what has been determined so far is a procedural matter. He explained that the government has filed a constitutional motion seeking the declaration that Mr David’s nomination and elections were unconstitutional.

He said that evidence were provided to show that David, who despite being a Grenadian did not relinquish the Canadian Citizen he acquired in 1994, before contesting the 2004 general elections. Wildman said that according to the constitution, David could not run for office before relinquishing his ties with Canada. However he indicated that the case heard by Justice Kenneth Benjamin had nothing to do with the case put forward by the government.

The Legal Advisor to the government pointed out that a subsequent application was filed on David’s behalf stating that it is now too late to challenge his election, which could have only being done by an election petition. Under the Election Petition Law a challenge can only be made within 21 days of the election. However, Wildman said that evidence of David’s Canadian Citizenship was discovered two years after the elections. The Legal Advisor to the government reiterated that the issue was not the election petition but David’s legality to sit in the house of parliament.

“We are saying that the constitution of Grenada is supreme and section 31 1A of the constitution makes it abundantly clear that if you by your own act swear allegiance to a foreign power or state, you are not eligible to be elected to the House of Representatives or for that matter to the senate. The judge is clearly wrong in treating this matter as an election petition”, Wildman pointed out. He said that section 37 of the constitution gives the court the power to determine whether anyone is properly elected to the house.

He made it abundantly clear that the case of the citizen of Mr David has not yet been tried. Wildman expressed concerned with recent decisions in the high court, that have surprisingly gone against the government. “Every time we have a case in the High Court we expect to lose. But we know that every time we appeal those judgments they are overturned. So this is just another one of those.” Wildman is also concerned at the length of time it took for the case to be decided. He said that the challenge on David’s legibility for the parliament was filed way back in March.

“We could have had our appeal in long ago. Now we have to be rushing to get the appeal in, so that we can have it heard by the time the next sitting of the Court of Appeal comes to Grenada”, Wildman disclosed. He said that it took the judge some seven months to arrive at a decision. However he is confident that the Court of Appeal will rule in Government’s favour when it comes to Grenada in December.