No injunction sought to stop House from meeting but Patterson suggests pause until case is decided

The Parliament of Barbados will, for now, continue to meet uninterrupted, as a constitutional motion questioning its validity opened before the High Court on Friday.

However, Madam Justice Cicely Chase today indicated there was a possibility she might make a ruling on whether or not the two Houses of Parliament would be allowed to operate while the matter was being heard.

On Wednesday, former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite through his attorneys Queen’s Counsel Garth Patterson and Michelle Russell filed a suit challenging the makeup of Parliament on the basis that not all 21 members of the Senate had been appointed.

Brathwaite is asking the court to quash President Dame Sandra Mason’s decision to reconvene Parliament.

When the matter came up in the Supreme Court on Friday morning, Patterson indicated in the virtual hearing that while he had not filed an injunction he felt it necessary to know whether the Government would continue to hold sessions of Parliament while the case was ongoing or if it would be suspended until a decision was rendered.

He contended that a “cloud of uncertainty” now hung over Parliament.

But Queen’s Counsel Leslie Haynes, who is appearing on behalf of Government along with a full legal team, told the two-hour sitting he was not in a position to do so as he had received no instructions on how to proceed with the matter.

The attorneys putting Government’s case before the court along with Haynes are Roger Forde QC, Alrick Scott QC, Gregory Nicholls and Simone Scott from the Attorney General’s Chambers, while the instructing attorneys are Carrington & Sealy Attorneys-at-law represented by Dr Adrian Cummins QC, Shericka Mohammed-Cumberbatch and Jason Wilkinson. Some 300 members of the public were able to access the hearing via Zoom.

“The issue of any undertaking or any injunction is not before the court, that is issue number one and practically issue number two is that we have no instructions on this matter. We came here this morning for case management,” Haynes said.

When asked if she would make a ruling on whether Parliament would be allowed to continue to meet, Justice Chase said she would allow the Government’s legal team to take instructions first.

However, she did not rule out making a decision when the case returns on February 25.

“I am going to allow counsel for the respondent to seek instructions on that matter, I think it is only but fair. And secondly, I do not believe that I have enough information before me that I can make that decision today at this time,” Justice Chase pointed out.

“I may, note I said may, consider such an application on the next occasion if there is no agreement but I cannot without a position being put forward by the respondent make that decision today.”

Patterson argued that if Parliament continued to meet and pass legislation and the court agreed with him in its decision, it meant those legislative changes would be deemed null and void.

And even though he said he was not seeking an injunction, he said the “responsible thing” to do would be for Parliament to wait until a ruling was made.

“I want to understand whether in the national interest if it is the position of the Government that the responsible thing to do is to hold until this court can pronounce on the validity of those proceedings, on the essential lifeblood, authority, jurisdiction, constitutional power, to act when it is not in our submission, properly constituted.

“We are not going to ask the court for an injunction, but we would want to get an indication from the Government whether or not in light of the very serious allegations that have been made, the very serious constitutional issues that have been raised, that this court’s view on the matter should take precedent and that the proceedings of the Senate and by extension the House would be stayed up until such time as this court is able to rule on it,” Patterson said.

“I recognize that there is some need to get on with the business of the House and Senate and it’s in the national interest that these matters be resolved quickly and that is why I am saying that we would like to expedite as much as possible some of these housekeeping case management issues recognizing that it may well have a detrimental impact on the ability of the Government to govern…”

Patterson told Justice Chase he believed the case could be completed in two weeks, but the High Court judge described that timeline as “ambitious”.

Haynes told the court his team would submit affidavits by February 17 and written submissions by February 23.

Patterson had earlier told the court that his case could be summarized “under three broad heads”. Those heads are that the Senate was not properly constituted and by extension the Parliament; the improper exercise of power and the constitutional amendments claims.

He also asked the court to allow the public access to the hearings by utilizing technology. He also stated his preference to attend court virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

randybennett@barbadostoday.bb