est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Patterson_Russell_Brathwaite
, ,

To the Courts!

It started in 2018 after the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) handed the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and the third parties an unprecedented 30 to zero drubbing in the general election. Many still believe a constitutional crisis was averted when Bishop Joe Atherley crossed the floor and a Leader of the Opposition (LoO) was recognized to…

It started in 2018 after the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) handed the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and the third parties an unprecedented 30 to zero drubbing in the general election. Many still believe a constitutional crisis was averted when Bishop Joe Atherley crossed the floor and a Leader of the Opposition (LoO) was recognized to ensure the business of parliament as outlined in the Constitution was carried out.

Who would have thunk it?

Prime Minister Mottley called a snap general election 18 months early and repeated a 30 to love win on 19 January 2022. On this occasion, no sitting MP seems willing to follow in the Bishop’s footsteps. The President of the Republic is unwilling to exercise discretion to appoint 2 Opposition Senators. Prime Minister Mottley in her infinite wisdom magnanimously has started the process to amend the Barbados Constitution to allow for the appointment of the 2 Opposition Senators from the losing political party that garnered the most votes. If that party refuses the opportunity to appoint slides to the next losing party. 

Here we are!

The news former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite filed a motion with the Court to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate should not surprise political pundits if one listened to the position of interim President of the DLP Steve Blackett. With the amendment to the Constitution proceeding in the parliament the DLP would eventually be forced into position of accepting the offer to appoint 2 Opposition Senators which would contradict the publicly stated position of the DLP represented by interim President Steve Blackett. 

A couple interesting sidebar observations. The former AG Brathwaite is being represented by attorneys-at-law Garth Patterson and Michelle Russell. Last week Brasstacks talk show host Glyne Murray observed the lawyers keeping the most ‘noise’ in the Barbados space on the the constitutionality of parliament are of Jamaican lineage. In fairness to Russell and Patterson they have been residing in Barbados for a long time, however, the blogmaster understands Murray’s point given the large cohort of Barbadians lawyers educated with our tax dollars.

One of the reasons forwarded why Mottley called an early general election was to quell an uprising by a faction in the BLP. Is it reasonable to opine if a few BLP MPs are dissatisfied with Mottley’s leadership a golden opportunity now presents itself for the malcontents to express themselves by crossing the floor or sounding their voices?

Political Games

The matter has gone the route of the Court and whatever the decision at first instance is will likely progress to the CCJ. What we have is a people suffering from economic fatigue, COVID-19 fatigue and you may add to the maladies, post election fatigue. Is this another opportunities to blame lawyers? 

Former Brathwaite in his released stated in part that he felt “compelled to seek the intervention of the Courts to resolve this controversy, one that centres around issues of vital national importance, and goes to the root of our democracy.” The blogmaster notes the former AG has advised that the matter is being brought in his capacity as a private citizen. How convenient!

Why did this extract from Brathwaite’s statement pique the interest of the blogmaster? Under Brathwaite’s tenure as AG with responsibility for the judiciary, he left it in a worse condition than he found it. The political games that lawyer politicians play mean an already congested court system has to adjudicate a matter created by lawyers. 

494 responses to “To the Courts!”

  1. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @John February 11, 2022 8:59 AM

    Senate needs to be constituted before a quorum becomes relevant.

    Twenty one senators need to be seated before the senate is constituted and the senators can be called senators.

    For the moment we have 18 aspiring senators waiting on another 3!!

    No Senate = no Parliament

    This is where I have a problem with this stupid debate putting more money in lawyers hands and wasting the court’s and eventually CCJ’s time.
    From the time the senators were sworn in by the President they became senators and unless the constitution states all legislation can only be passed if it has more than 18, I would consider the senate operational.

    I hope when it gets to the CCJ, they state only the Leader of the Opposition can put forward names for those 2 senate seats and until there is a Leader of The Opposition in the Lower House to advise the President on those two persons, the 2 opposition senate seats cannot be filled and must be left vacant.

  2. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David
    It is simple.
    If you write a constitution that says that there MUST be a LOTO and you assign CRITICAL roles to such a person, THEN common sense dictates that the constitution ENSURES that such an animal exists.
    Who is to blame for this flaw when we had the SAME situation just 3 years ago…?

  3. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    “The whole show with Rihanna with all her bosums exposed was meant simply as a distraction.”

    baring breasts is an African thing
    brainwashed Barbadians have got sexual hangups like Europeans who get over excited with a tease being weapons of mass distraction

  4. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @David February 11, 2022 9:02 AM

    @CA

    A novel suggestion, we should debate this some more. As discussed many times the constitution or any law will not address all scenarios, when flaws appear as in this case we should fix to anticipate future eventuality.

    Fixing the missing Leader of the Opposition problem is a solution only a critical thinker can come up with. Lawyer solutions only create more revenue earnings streams for themselves.

    New constituency seats have been added before so it would have been a simple matter to add an amendment to automatically add a special Leader of the opposition seat for the government’s term where all the losing candidates decide amongst themselves and recommend one of their own to the president to be the Leader of the Opposition.

  5. angela cox Avatar
    angela cox

    hope when it gets to the CCJ, they state only the Leader of the Opposition can put forward names for those 2 senate seats and until there is a Leader of The Opposition in the Lower House to advise the President on those two persons, the 2 opposition senate seats cannot be filled and must be left vacant
    Xxxx
    Where does it say such in the Constitution
    BTW the party to whom govt is offering the seat has a recognized leader as deemed to be by the party Constitution
    Hence when Depezia vacated her leadership position she transfered the role of leadership
    to Blackett
    Then why is this straw man talk of leadership being invoked
    Question begs to be asked why can’t the President talk with Blackett

  6. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    USA does not have a leader of opposition / parliamentary democracy system

    although Trump seems to believe he is now

  7. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    (Quote):
    The most that can happen here is that the President will be advised to appoint two senators and Mia will be advised to appoint a seat warmer for Koochie Koo.
    (Unquote).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Bingo!

    Then there is No need to ‘fix’ the Constitution to achieve that straightforward outcome.

    Do just that and then bring any amendment(s) deemed to be in the people’s democratic interest like lowering the age to be appointed to the Senate or elected to the HoA where the real process to underscore the parliamentary democratic system of governance is most at risk.

  8. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @angela cox February 11, 2022 10:01 AM

    Where in the constitution is a party defined? I don’t even think the DLP party can bring the case in the current matter before the Supreme Court and why Adriel Brathwhaite had to bring it.

    Until the constitution officially defines what a party is, nothing can be offered to them. If we bring a poltical party into the constitution, does that now
    1) allow election ballots to now state the political party each candidate is associated with
    2) mean that if a MP leaves a party we voted for, must they now resign because we voted by party.
    3) Can we now sue political parties for misleading the electorate for their unkept promises

    Oh what a tangled web lawyers love to weave.

  9. David Avatar
    David

    What?

  10. John Avatar
    John

    555dubstreetFebruary 11, 2022 9:56 AM

    “The whole show with Rihanna with all her bosums exposed was meant simply as a distraction.”

    baring breasts is an African thing

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Go into the interior of Brazil in the rain forest of the Amazon and you will see this is not true!!

  11. John Avatar
    John

    … or Venezuela!!

  12. David Avatar
    David

    @Bush Tea

    Time will tell if your observation is supported by the Courts. You are aware in our FPTP system the outcome of a general election assumes there will be a LoO BUT in a case there is not the President uses discretion. Face it Bush Tea, if the electorate is extreme in selecting as in our case 60-0 it will be left to contingent rule to complete the deal. Nothing man made is perfect.

  13. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    So how are you brilliant folks planning to conjure up a Leader of the Opposition?

    Barring one sent by the same Mia to act in the post, of course!

    Provision seems to have been made in the event that none was provided by the elections.

    This fact seems to have been acknowledged even by Adriel’s lawsuit.

    I think it is time for me to contact Cuhdear’s little men. They will make for more intelligent conversation.

    Frank,

    Sssssssh! The way of BU is to anoint certain people as next to God.

    Hilarious really.

  14. David Avatar
    David

    What a ‘GLORIOUS’ comment.

  15. John Avatar
    John

    Is the constitution applicable to a legal entity?

    Is a legal entity involved in a law suit which drags on and on in our courts able to bring a constitutional motion against the AG (ag or not) for denial of access to a fair and speedy trial?

    Commonsense would suggest yes.

    Is the DLP a legal entity registered under the laws of Barbados?

    Is a Foreign Citizen or Foreign legal entity submitting to the legal jurisdiction of Barbados protected by the Constitution of Barbados?

    Again, commonsense suggests yes.

  16. John Avatar
    John

    DonnaFebruary 11, 2022 10:23 AM

    So how are you brilliant folks planning to conjure up a Leader of the Opposition?

    Barring one sent by the same Mia to act in the post, of course!

    Provision seems to have been made in the event that none was provided by the elections.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the President/GG can act for the Leader of the Opposition she should have been in the House putting the opposing viewpoint of her constituents in the debate on the proposed change to the constitution.

    Her role is just ceremonial and she has nothing really to do so certainly she would have ample time in her schedule to have put in an appearance in the House when the change was read and debated.

  17. Vincent Codrington Avatar
    Vincent Codrington

    Wuh Loss. A continuation of the Rum Shop Parliament. I wish there was a flaw in its constitution. I may be tempted to introduce some Bay Rum. What flaws ?What? Follow the language and the spirit of the Constitution. Is the Court an Elections Court? This game is so disingenuous.

  18. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ Critical Analyzer February 11, 2022 10:17 AM
    (Quote):
    Until the constitution officially defines what a party is, nothing can be offered to them. If we bring a poltical party into the constitution, does that now
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Brilliant! You would do a great job as an advocate on Constitutional matters!

    How can there be any Constitutionally-valid reason to an offer to any political party to nominate two members to the Senate when the same Constitution does not recognize political parties as legal entities or electoral bodies but only individual(s) to be elected to the HoA or appointed to the Upper Chamber of the country’s tripartite Parliament?

    First amend the existing Bible of citizens rights and responsibilities or make provision for such recognition into the promised Constitution for the New Republic to reflect the role of political parties in the People’s electoral process before creating another additional convoluted conundrum.

    This recognition of political parties in the country’s electoral process must take place before any consideration of introducing proportional representation can take place.

  19. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, we cover all this long time to let me go off on the tangent you drew above re it’s a “novel idea” that “…the amendment should have been done to create a temporary 31st parliament seat for the Leader of the Opposition …”!

    New, it certainly is but novel generally also suggests being both new and meaningful or impactful .., respectfully to the brother but @Critical is in the intensive room with that position … he is surely not critically sage!🙈

    To start down that road is to perpetuate the inaccuracy of interpretation like your hero @BusTea who said: “If you write a constitution that says that there MUST be a LOTO and you assign CRITICAL roles to such a person…”

    The Bdos Constitution DOES NOT… repeat , DOES NOT legislate that there MUST BE an LoO.

    There IS DEFINITELY the clause saying “There shall be a Leader of the Opposition who shall be appointed by the (Pres] …’

    BUT the SAME constitution ALSO CLEARLY SAYS:
    “During any period in which there is a vacancy in the office of the Leader of the Opposition by reason of the fact that no person is both qualified in accordance with this Constitutiin for, and willing to accept, appointment to that office, the [Pres] shall — a) act in his discretion in the exercise of any function […where the LoO would have acted]”

    That is straightforward English .(the brackets my summation for space, of course) … STRAIGHTFORWARD.. ..
    it automatically dismisses and NEGATES any perceived necessity of an LoO!

    @Mr Bush Tea knows English very well and I suspect @Critical sees himself as an outstanding arbiter of facts… thus I am confused that they should be forcing such inaccurate positions on those of us who are not as astute as they are 😇🙈🤦🏾‍♂️!

    BTW @Northern, is @John your 1st cousin once-removed or a former bro-in-law or some other cuddly relations… man… you does treat his BS with real purposeful discourse when you know he just talking pure horse-radish … he mekking bare mock-sport pun de blog!

    All good tho. Lata and peace out.

  20. David Avatar
    David

    @Miller

    Do you appreciate what the amendment is meant to address?

  21. David Avatar
    David

    @Dee Word

    If the blogmaster read CA accurately the suggestion is about adding to the Constitution.

  22. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    A week to rejoice, indeed. The opposition destroys the Senate and with it itself.

    Time for our Supreme Leader to order her faithful follower K2, the young National Leader of the Mottley Youth, to storm the Senate.

  23. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    Our Supreme Leader and her cabinet face truly titanic challenges. They work day and night for the good of the people and the state.

    And what is the opposition doing? They do not want to cooperate in the legislation and leave the people in the lurch. They criticise petty paragraphs instead of making people’s everyday lives easier.

    The people have never seen more clearly where the real enemies of the common good are to be found.

  24. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    Money Worries

    Rockers Takeover
    Graduation in Zion


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omzZDjt72-c

  25. John Avatar
    John

    de pedantic DribblerFebruary 11, 2022 11:04 AM

    BUT the SAME constitution ALSO CLEARLY SAYS:
    “During any period in which there is a vacancy in the office of the Leader of the Opposition by reason of the fact that no person is both qualified in accordance with this Constitutiin for, and willing to accept, appointment to that office, the [Pres] shall — a) act in his discretion in the exercise of any function […where the LoO would have acted]”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    One of the functions of the Leader of the Opposition is to appear in Parliament and take the opposing view of the Government.

    Does this section mandate the President/GG appear in Parliament his/her absence?

    Clearly, 74 has to be satisfied before 75 comes into play.

    The office needs to be filled before it can be deemed vacant and section 75 comes in to play.

    Let’s say Ms. Mockley makes 3 of her members cross the floor and form an opposition.

    She has 30 and plenty to spare.

    The three of them then elect a leader from their number.

    The elected leader then goes to Government House and tries to convince the President/GG that he/she opposes the Government.

    Does the President/GG look like an idiot to you?

    Even you if you were in her position you would smell a big ass dead rat.

    She has to turn a blind eye to fallacy being promoted by Ms. Mockley.

    Lets say she then exercises her discretion and accepts Ms. Mockley’s choice as leader of the Opposition.

    She places herself firmly in the same boat as the insurrectionists led by Ms. Mockley in her attempt to subvert the constitution.

    It has gone far enough.

    The only sensible option left is for Ms. Mockley, her insurrectionists and the President/GG is to resign and fresh elections called.

    They are not going to go easy because legacies are at stake.

    If the outcome of the court case goes against the AG, it will mean that the reading of the bill to change the constitution is null and void and of no effect.

    So who is going to be the Leader of the Opposition?

  26. Vincent Codrington Avatar
    Vincent Codrington

    @ David Bu at 11:06 AM

    The constitution needs no additions. It is perfectly clear about the outcome it expects. The confusion arises because some commentators think Parliament is a debating society. That is not its social objective. Its purpose is simply to select a group of persons to manage the affairs of the country. There is no meaningful role for a group to oppose for opposing sake. Or for the citizens to hear alternative philosophies. And there is presently no alternative programs. We have just two group of persons waiting turns to occupy the seat of governance. That is the main reason the electorate are bored and indifferent and disengaged. Meanwhile time and scarce resources are wasted on trivia.

  27. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    The Queen of Barbados the President in the Resident has the Power
    Not the Courts

    Queen majesty, may I speak to thee? … Is it really true, these things I ask of you?

    Minstrel & Queen

    Dennis Brown – Queen Majesty

  28. John Avatar
    John

    It is resignation time!!

  29. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ David February 11, 2022 11:05 AM
    “Do you appreciate what the amendment is meant to address?”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yes! But it must be done within the four walls of the Supreme Law or else you would make the baby republic look like a spoilt child determined to have its way at the Nursery.

    Politicians in Bim need to ‘grow up’ if there is to be any credence to their boast about parliamentary democracy which can be achieved only within the rules set down in the Constitution.

    Stop trying to copy Trump!

    Why must the appointment of any senator to sit in Opposition to the Government come about through a recommendation from the same government because of a desire to amend the Supreme Law to achieve a political objective?

    Is there any similar need for an Opposition in the Lower House aka HoA?

    Let the person representing the Voice of the People- from both side of the electoral divide- make that decision based on his or her Constitutionally-enshrined Discretion.

  30. John Avatar
    John

    Looks like the Zoom Meeting for the Court hearing the case is over subscribed.

    Good thing Bajans are apathetic!!

  31. John Avatar
    John

    https://zoom.us/j/98236346634?pwd=UWhlR2xqSFJxenV6anNCVmJwWlE1dz09

  32. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    @Vincent Codrington February 11, 2022 11:45 AM

    I 200% agree with you. The Leader of the Opposition post is not a required post unlike the PM post or President where certain functions cannot continue if those posts are not filled.

    Were I the PM, I would not have attempted any constitutional amendments and simply left the Leader Opposition post vacant until the next election or one or more of my MP colleagues seek to become the opposition. All opposition appointed posts would also remain empty until an opposition appears or the next election.

    However, since we are talking about constitutional amendments to address the perceived gaps created by the seemingly vacant Leader of the Opposition position, our constitutional tweaks should only be geared towards creating a special seat in the Lower House for the Leader of the Opposition.

  33. Steve Prescott Avatar
    Steve Prescott

    I do not accept the President is acting unconstitutionally. Has anyone thought that maybe she already knows her discretionary powers do not stretch to inviting 2 Senators outside of the 4 corners of the constitution?

    The problem is NOT appointing 2 more Senators. The problem is there is no opposition from which to appoint those Senators. That is an unavoidable truth and any argument that seeks to put down the President seems misplaced.

    Agreed the Constitution must be read in its totality. But the fact is, on this matter it is clear – “The Senate shall consist of twenty-one persons who, […] have been so appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section.” That is section 36! Those provisions require no interpretation; “Two Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition”. The President cannot simply bypass specific provisions of this law and allow lawyers and the PM to suggest offering senate seats with out any legal power to do so. Neither can the PM take that mantle upon herself. There is a lawful imperative in using the word “shall” (used 563 times, where as “must” is only used 3). Are we to assume from that that there is no imperative to do the things the constitution orders?

    If the President has a discretionary power then surely she also has the power to disagree with a course of action within a function she has power to control. Think about it… are people really suggesting (in this case) the President has the power to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution? And if so, where does that power stop? Maybe she knows this? There can be no equivocation, personal interpretation, political bias or finger in the air analysis. The many arguments here digging in to the President are misconceived.

    The one particular power she does have is to revoke the appointment of the PM and to dissolve Parliament. She should take hold of that power.

    Court adjudication is a positive step. But, if we cannot come up with an authoritative constitutional way of resolving this then – back to the polls. It may not be the easy way and it may not sit well with many people but the only constitutional way to resolve this problem is to ask the electorate.

    Maybe the apathy they feel now might be shaken out of them when they know the President is serious about the Constitution – because this impasse must be resolved in a constitutional manner. Just maybe the other 60% of the electorate will wake up and smell the coffee.

  34. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    “The problem is there is no opposition from which to appoint those Senators. That is an unavoidable truth and any argument that seeks to put down the President seems misplaced.”

    We reserve the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions …

    We may at any time make changes in Products or modify the drawings and specifications relating thereto or substitute Products of later design, provided the changes, modifications or substitutions under normal and proper use do not impact upon form, fit or function or materially adversely affect the use, function, or performance …

  35. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    “But, if we cannot come up with an authoritative constitutional way of resolving this then – back to the polls. It may not be the easy way and it may not sit well with many people but the only constitutional way to resolve this problem is to ask the electorate.”

    That is one quantum leap on logic and sense
    you must be mad
    with all your big words that mean nothing

  36. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    What bullshit! The electorate has already spoken.

    How do you propose to ensure that they speak differently this time???

    What if the results are the same?

    Another election????

    Assholery squared!

  37. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @John re “Looks like the Zoom Meeting for the Court hearing the case is over subscribed.[..]Good thing Bajans are apathetic!!”
    🤣🤣🤣🤣

    Bro u are hilarious … this is truly (to many … to others trivial) a seminal legal matters … thus 98% of de subscribers dem are lawyers, academics and ting so — (and BUians too🤣).

    De average Bajan cud give a ‘moot’ or as @Pieces would say so cavalierly … do average Bajan see it as a bare ‘waste foo*’.

    @Vincent, awesomely said at your 11:45 … go to the head of the class sir, at least I can see that all is not lost … you cut through the BS clearly so surely many others do also!

    And @David, indeed so re 11:06AM … and as @Vincent alluded to… the suggestion is an absolutely not needed.
    I would further say it’s a non-starter. … as it also makes no sense legally or rationally.

    Why would we legislate that when citizens reject candidates that the legislature should reset those decisions by effecting a new election simply to elect a dissenting voice …
    JUST to allow palaver in the House just for its sake…. as @Vincent so pellucidly noted!

    I gone do.

    I’ll listen out for who will appeal … surely the judge can issue a preliminary ruling today, yes… pending the written decision. .. or maybe not!

    Lata.

  38. Vincent Codrington Avatar
    Vincent Codrington

    @ Donna at 12 :23 PM

    I concur. I would ,however ,raise that part of the human anatomy to the 10th power.

  39. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    David,

    As I reasoned, “WW3” is not on the horizon. Biden just told Americans to get out of Ukraine NOW! He has no intentions of rescuing any stragglers.

    In his words, “When Russia and America start firing at each other, that is World War 3.”

    Not happening. Sometimes we brass bowl unreal women know what we are talking about.

    So no, the end is NOT nigh!

    So the little two senator saga is back on the list of things that matter.

    Murdaaaaah!

  40. David Avatar
    David

    @Miller

    The matter before the court does not address concerns you raised? Allow the court to decide, it exists for this reason.

  41. David Avatar
    David

    The capacity of the Zoom is 300. It being subscribed means nothing.

  42. David Avatar
    David

    The matter is obviously not clear cut. If it was it is reasonable to assume the matter before the court would not be brought.

  43. African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved Avatar
    African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved

    “I do not accept the President is acting unconstitutionally. Has anyone thought that maybe she already knows her discretionary powers do not stretch to inviting 2 Senators outside of the 4 corners of the constitution?

    The problem is NOT appointing 2 more Senators. The problem is there is no opposition from which to appoint those Senators. That is an unavoidable truth and any argument that seeks to put down the President seems misplaced”

    say it again, some people believe ignorance is intelligence.

  44. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @ David,

    Not one of the BU maguffees including you David has been able to explain why the election was imposed on the people of Barbados.

    For me it is simple. She is the boss and did what she thought was best for those who work for her.

    buh doan mine me. I does read everything Miller and Bushie write.

  45. David Avatar
    David

    @Hants

    Do you understand what PM’s prerogative means?

  46. TheOGazerts Avatar
    TheOGazerts

    🙂
    Just kidding. Not trying to be accurate

    I am opposed to any amendment. Why? If just changing GG to President can bring us to this state, what would happen, if we change more than three words?

    Now we see what black women face when given power. Suddenly, we want to impeach the President. As a puppet of the queen, she would have been above reproach 😃

  47. angela cox Avatar
    angela cox

    I am sharing a very clear explanation authored by attorney-at-law Tricia Watson for the benefit of those who still don’t understand why thinking citizens are worried:

    (1) The Constitution states that there shall be a Senate comprised of 21 persons. Not 18; 21. The provision relates to the composition of Parliament. It is stated in the imperative. It is clear and unambiguous.

    (2) The Constitution of Barbados states that the President shall appoint two senators on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition (LOO). It is stated in the imperative; it is clear and unambiguous. There is no reference whatsoever to opposing or Opposition Senators.

    (3) The Constitution of Barbados states that where there is a vacancy in the office of the LOO, the President shall (again imperative) act in her own discretion in matters where the Constitution requires that she act on the advice of the LOO. That provision is clear and unambiguous.

    (4) The Constitution of Barbados states that to change all of the provisions that I have referred to, there shall be 2/3 support of the votes of all of the members of each House. Not some of them. Not a quorum. All of them; i.e. 21 senators and 30 members of the Lower House. That provision is clear and unambiguous.

    (5) Notwithstanding that you have read the Constitution, there are rules of statutory interpretation, steeped in case law, that must be applied, and that will be applied by the courts.

    (6) There is faux constitutional conundrum being created in Barbados to justify tinkering with the Constitution. We are being asked to accept that “shall” means “may”; 21 means 18 (or even 8); that “vacancy” doesn’t mean “vacancy”; that “dissolution” means “continuation”; to read words into the Constitution that are not there and that are clearly not intended to be there; to accept that the concept of a “political party” that appears NOWHERE ELSE in our Constitution or in our electoral laws, should be dumped into our Constitution on a mere whim.

    (7) You are right on one thing. Any “law” “passed” by an improperly constituted “parliament” is invalid. I ask you, whose fault is that? The solution to that – properly constitute the Parliament; stop the continuous political campaign; get on with the people’s business, adhering to the Rule of Law. That’s the answer.

    (8) Finally, a word on “political parties”. Our law deems a political party to be a mere club – it is not a legal person nor a legal entity. It cannot sue or be sued. Think about that. Why no requirement for registration and regulation of political parties by the electoral boundaries commission? Why no reference to political parties with respect to the Lower House? Why then is the “government” trying to clumsily force this concept into our Constitution?

    (9) Reject misinformation, propaganda and manipulation. Think. Agitate.

    Feel free to educate by sharing.

    #democracy #barbados #constitututionaltinkering
    #ConstitutionalLaw

  48. Artax Avatar
    Artax

    Steve Prescott February 11, 2022 12:05 PM

    Are you implying “the other 60% of the electorate” was sleeping on both occasions elections end with a 30-0 result?

    After reading your rhetoric and “pretty talk,” you’re essentially suggesting elections should be called until an Opposition is elected.

  49. John Avatar
    John

    It is kind of obvious fresh elections are needed.

    The BLP should not hold the country to ransom trying various ruses to subvert the constitution.

  50. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @ David who wrote ” Do you understand what PM’s prerogative means? ”

    I am not sure but I do know what to expect from those who appear to be autocratic.

Older Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to de pedantic DribblerCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading