Former Minister of Tourism and Economic Development, Asot Michael, has filed an appeal against the order of Justice Rene Williams in Civil Suit No. ANUHCV2023/0209.
The notice of appeal, dated October 27, 2023, challenges key aspects of the judgment, asserting that the court erred in its findings related to the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.
Background: The appeal arises from a civil suit where Asot Michael, the Appellant, had claimed a breach of section 57 of the Constitution.
The court, in its judgment dated August 23, 2023, declared that the Claimant’s claim could not proceed, citing lack of jurisdiction and striking out the entire case (Claim No: ANUHCV2023/0209).
The notice of appeal outlines specific details of the order being challenged, findings of fact and law, and the grounds on which the appeal is based.
Details of the Order Appealed: The Appellant contests the following aspects of the order:
- The dismissal of the Claimant’s claim alleging a breach of section 57 of the Constitution.
- The declaration that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim.
- The striking out of Claim No: ANUHCV2023/0209 in its entirety.
Grounds of Appeal: The Notice of Appeal presents several grounds challenging the trial judge’s findings:
- Subsidiary Legislation Misinterpretation: The Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in holding that the Standing Orders are subsidiary legislation and, therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Parliament’s actions. It is contended that the Standing Orders form an integral part of the Constitution.
- Failure to Recognize Standing Orders as Constitutional: The appeal alleges that the trial judge failed to appreciate that the Standing Orders are a constitutional component and subject to the Constitution, particularly section 57(1).
- Misinterpretation of Constitutional Provisions: The trial judge is accused of not fully understanding the significance of section 57(1) and failing to give due consideration to section 119 of the Constitution.
- Limitation of Rights Under Section 119: It is asserted that the trial judge did not give full effect to the rights granted to citizens under section 119 of the Constitution, which deals with the protection of fundamental rights.
- Standing Orders’ Constitutional Status: The appeal contends that the trial judge erred in holding that there is no indication that the Standing Orders are elevated to the status of the Constitution.
- Failure to Recognize Standing Orders’ Incorporation: The Appellant argues that the trial judge misjudged the relationship between the Standing Orders and the Constitution, asserting that any breach of the former gives the court jurisdiction.
- Speaker’s Alleged Breach: The appeal accuses the Speaker of the House of Representatives of acting arbitrarily and in excess of his powers by not following the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders.
- Denial of Amendment Application: The trial judge is criticized for denying the Claimant the opportunity to amend his Originating Motion despite an application to strike it out by the Defendant.
Order Sought: The Appellant seeks a reversal of the trial judge’s decision and costs of the appeal and proceedings below.
The order sought includes the power for the Court of Appeal to hear and determine the appeal.
Other Parties to the Proceedings: The Respondent in this appeal is Gerald Watt KC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
This appeal sets the stage for a crucial legal battle, shedding light on the intricate relationship between parliamentary procedures, subsidiary legislation, and the constitutional rights of citizens.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of constitutional matters in Antigua and Barbuda.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
We give politicians power for 5 years but 4 years of it is in Cort fighting to hell wit all politicians
@biggs:The man is exercising his Constitutional rights.You as a Citizen of Antigua and Barbuda have those same rights.So do not be afraid to exercise them when the time permits.
Both major political parties agree AM acted badly. The punishment has already ran its course, yet AM is wrong and strong. In the past, AM has been willing to atleast show a willing to repent. One can’t help but remember his terminator type speech, which included an apology, labelled I will be back, after he was removed by LB at GB insistence. Perhaps due to his new friends, who won’t tell him the truth in private, AM is wrong and strong. They say justice can at times be slow, the UK investigative agencies may soon press charges against AM.
As an independent, Asot seems lost and totally frustrated. Asot is at a stand still since that huge victory, it’s like he now believes he and Shugy will be the power pack, truly trying hard to be close to Mr Simon and the sad thing is, most people’s comments especially from the UPP tends to sympathize with Mr Michael forgetting this man has been an ABLP all his life and a top MP for years. You often blast the PM with different names, but one of most skillful politician in this country, most crooked and corrupt is the great Asot who is at lost presently, but with a little love from UPP might be able to get something started in his constituency.
I am in agreement @Carvaa. I don’t agree with the Speaker’s decision to deny Michael the rights to represent his constituents, I take the view that Speaker over step his position, as well as being biased.
Nonetheless, I, as an UPP supporter takes the view that caution should be exercised when dealing with AM, who in my opinion should not be trusted on any level; he should be regarded as a Judas under disguise.
UPP, has done extremely well so far without AM input, demonstrating that UPP is the party to transform politics in Antigua from Corruption to one of transparency and integrity; the two attributes I couldn’t add to AM resume.
Comments are closed.