IMMORAL GOVERNMENT

Volume 63. No.44 Vincentian Saturday November 14, 1972

Fifteen cents

Front page Editorial An Immoral Government St Vincent stands indicted before the Bar of the world opinion for that its Ministers in order to save themselves from penalties went to the highest authority in the land, the Legislature and passed a law so that they might escape punishment.

When these cases were lodged by the labour party supporters against three Ministers for bribery and treating, they were tempted to look merely as as nuisance value, a red herring across the trail with but little substance, but when these Ministers had to invoke Parliament to enact legislation to give them a way out, it assures us without doubt that they themselves were certain of their guilt, and of a certainty that it could be brought shame to them so that they adopted this course.

There are members of the Government from whom we could expect this sort of things, but we are extremely surprised to find that men like James Fitz-Allen Mitchell, Clive Leonard Tannis, men for whom we had the greatest respect, men who we consider of high calibre and integrity, could sink so low as to be party to such a miscarriage of justice.

Here were cases filed against three Ministers and dates for hearing having even been called and adjourned, and Parliament meets and enact legislation making the date for filing the writs 28 days after the election instead of 6 months as is written in the laws and this to be operated retroactively with the design of preventing the cases from being heard.

Well, might the populace ask, where the opposition was while this undemocratic

action was taking place? The answer to this is that the Opposition has in the recent past contrary to the duty and purpose of an Opposition, been avoiding the House of Assembly for what reason we know not and on this occasion only three members were present and it is apparently what the Government was waiting for. The meeting was scheduled for 10:00 am, but after a forty-five minutes delay, was called to order and suspended until 4:00pm. At 4:00 pm, there was a further forty-five minutes delay and then when this Bill was introduced only some of the Opposition were present.

Opposition or no Opposition, however, this is a matter for the people of St Vincent; party or no party, this is a matter which concern every man, woman and child. Can anyone of the teeming masses be satisfied to know that when he commit a crime he must answer to the Magistrates or Judge for it but that his Representative whom he has put there to represent him can go to Parliament to enact legislation to free himself from any crime he might commit?

This sort of dictatorial rule call for concerted action by the people of St. Vincent.

All of the people of St. Vincent should rally together and let the Government know in no uncertain terms that they would not stand for this sort of things, we want laws but we want just laws, laws that will be the same for me as for you, the same for the peasant as for the Minister and no Minister has the right to take shelter under his position in the Government to protect himself from his legal liabilities.

THIS IS THE TIME TO ACT! People of St Vincent, if you love yourself, you will love your children; nip this thing in the bud NOW. Remember if you allow these things to go on the time will come when you will regret it because you will then no longer be able to do anything about it. Let law prevail and go to any length to safeguard it, this is your St. Vincent, DEMAND THATTHIS ATROCIOUS LAW BE REPEALED IMMEDIATELY!

ADVOCATE NEWS – Columnist writes on

19th November 1972

Topic for today --- By E.L.C DISTARDLY LEGISLATION by the St. Vincent House We have had dastardly legislation by the Caribbean Government in the past, but I venture to say without any fear of contradiction, that the House of Assembly Election Amendment Act or whatever its title, just passed by the St. Vincent Assembly is the most heinous and dishonest piece of legislation to go through a Caribbean Parliament or for that matter a Parliament anywhere.

There appear to be no doubt whatever that without resort to such political chicanery the Government of Mr James Mitchell would have fallen. His followers must be sorely disappointed in Mr Mitchell. According to the St Vincent laws as they stood before being so rudely shattered, citizens were allowed to bring charges of malpractice at elections against guilty parties within 6 months of the elections concerned.

In keeping with these provisions, the St. Vincent labour Party politicians, then defeated, had filed complaints in the Magistrate's court of St. Vincent allegeding bribery and corruption by three of Mitchell's Ministers of Government at the last elections.

It is my understanding that the evidence against them is well-documented and that the SVLP is supremely confident of securing convictions in all three cases. This would undoubtedly bring down the coalition Government now in the saddle, and topple Mr Mitchell from power.

To prevent this, the scheme was devised to rush through parliament a Bill to be effective retroactively altering the period of complaint from 6 months to 28 days and thus effectively preventing any actions against the Ministers concerned.

One can only presume that if these three Ministers had committed murder then a Bill would be brought before the St. Vincent legislature effective retroactively to make the punishment for that offense a fine of $5.00 or a pat on the back for this is exactly what such dickering with the law can mean to a community and the people of St. Vincent must let Mr Mitchell and his henchmen know in no uncertain terms that all decent people reject such callous and cynical treatment.

It may well be, of course, that Mr Mitchell will claim that the opposition waited until the last possible minute to file their complaints because had they done so earlier, his side would have been able to file other charges. This has absolutely nothing to do with the case. The law very clearly give the opposition a certain period. In good faith, the Opposition, as was their right, took advantage of the provisions of the law. Nothing can justify this reprehensible misuse of power to frustrate their efforts. In my opinion, retroactive legislation is NEVER justifiable, and I should very much like to read a justification of its introduction for whatever cause by the Barbados Law Society or Bar Association or even by one of our unemployed Lawyers as a labour of love.

In this connection perhaps, I can quote from Akar versus Attorney General heard in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone before Banja Tejan-sie Chief Justice. The Constitution of Sierra Leone (1961) prescribed conditions for Sierra Leone citizenship under which “every person born in Sierra Leone and who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies of the British-protected person became on April27, 1961 a citizen of Sierra Leone unless neither any of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in Sierra Leone”.

The Constitution Amendment Act of 1962 purported to amend the above conditions by limiting “every person” to “every person of negro-African descent”. The new Act was to be retroactive. The Plaintiff one Mr Akar bravely challenged the validity of the amending legislation court. The Chief Justice took the view that the time was ripe for nations with written Constitutions and particularly new independent nations within the Commonwealth to bring to life as an active force the following dictum of Coke in Bonham's case, a dictum which has considerable history in the United States to test the validity of a legislative action of Government. (When an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an Act as void).

Commenting on the retroactive effect of the legislation in question, his Lordship observed: “in my mind what makes the matter worse was the so-called amendments were retroactive. One realizes that here are occasions where retroactive legislation is necessary but it should be passed very sparingly and only when fully justified”. In the result, his Lordship held that the purported amendment were null and void and Asians of Sierra Leone such as Mr Akar retained the full citizenship and constitution rights of which the legislators had sought to deprive them.

It may well be that Mr Milton Cato should appeal to the Supreme Court of St. Vincent (or is it the Associated States?)

Let the Supreme Court decides if this retroactive legislation is

justified. The court will undoubtedly differentiate between the simple alteration from 6 months to 28 days which may be justifiable and allow the amendment to be retroactive and thus deprive SVLP of its rights.