By Jonathan Willard
Since Kelvin Simon’s resignation, Antiguans are Barbudans have been witnessing a trio of public officers whose duty is to abide by and enforce the Constitution, tear it to shreds instead.
Prime Minister Gaston Browne and Senator Samantha Marshall opened the batting in the immediate aftermath of June 7, when Simon gave his resignation to the Speaker of the House, Sir Gerald Watt, KC.
They spent the following days deliberately misinforming the public that somehow, despite the clear, unambiguous, adequate, and succinct provisions for resignation contained in the Constitution, Section 125, Kelvin Simon had not actually resigned.
At the national broadcasting station, ABS, the public was further deceived when newscasters repeatedly suggested that the third member of the troika, Sir Gerald, was empowered to make a decision on Simon’s resignation and whether it would be accepted.
It should be stated categorically that Sir Gerald has no such power. Why? Because the Constitution gives him no such power. So, what does the Constitution say about resignations?
Section 125 of the Constitution addresses the issue. Section 125(1)(b) when read in full states: “Any person who is appointed or elected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person or authority by whom he was appointed or elected provided that the resignation of any person from membership of the Senate or the House shall be addressed to the President or the Speaker, as the case may be.”
Section 125(2) states: “The resignation of any person from any such office as aforesaid shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed, or any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.”
Simon wrote to the Speaker on June 7, declaring his immediate resignation. ABS reported that very night, that the Speaker acknowledged that he received the letter. Constitutionally, the moment he received the letter, Simon’s seat became vacant.
Despite this, we have been treated to the most unsound, ungrounded, round-about and downright insane arguments as to why Simon has supposedly not tendered his resignation properly.
Prime Minister Gaston Browne over the weekend of Saturday, June 10, did not even bother to couch anything he said in a legal argument.
He simply declared that he was certain that Simon had not resigned properly, and that the government therefore would not acknowledge the seat as being vacant.
He willingly waded further into unconstitutional waters, and declared that the government would not hold a by-election in 120 days as the Constitution demands, but would instead do so when the ABLP backed court matter filed against Simon on behalf of Marshall comes to a close – whenever that is.
Marshall, meanwhile, has been striking a similar tone, publicly making the absurd argument that MPs cannot resign without additional grounds approved by Parliament.
This suggestion contradicts the most basic notion of the Constitution being the supreme law.
If the Constitution makes it permissible for MPs to resign for any reason (which it implies by prescribing no grounds), how then can Parliament proceed to make any law that restricts the grounds upon which an MP can resign?
Completing the troika of unconstitutionality, the Speaker of the House has now written to former MP Kelvin Simon, outrageously claiming that Simon is still an MP.
The Speaker’s letter to Simon, sent on Monday, June 12, is perhaps one of the most bizarre things you will read if you take the time to reference the sections of the Constitution he is quoting.
Firstly, he outright dismisses the power of Section 125 of the Constitution to give MPs what he calls the “right” to resign. This is despite the same section doing so in plain language.
Again, Section 125(1)(b) clearly states in full: “Any person who is appointed or elected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person or authority by whom he was appointed or elected provided that the resignation of any person from membership of the Senate or the House shall be addressed to the President or the Speaker, as the case may be.”
And further, 125(2) states: “The resignation of any person from any such office as aforesaid shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed, or any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.”
Seems pretty straightforward, right? That’s because it is. So, why would a senior attorney like Sir Gerald proffer such ludicrous arguments?
What is happening here is called gaslighting. This is when someone knowingly sows self-doubt and confusion in our minds by sticking vehemently to a false narrative in the face of reality, forcing us to question our own judgment and intuition.
The hope is that after a while, despite your ability to understand clear unambiguous language, and to think for yourself, you give up, and say “I’m not an attorney, so who am I to guess what this really means?” Alas, Sir Gerald is learned, and you and I are as dimwitted as a horse’s ass. Right?
In relation to what Sir Gerald is calling the “right” to resign, it warrants emphasizing again that Section 125 of the Constitution provides no preconditions for resignations.
It merely requires that the person resigning simply express that intent in writing to the prescribed authority.
It does not say that one can only resign if one scenario occurs or the other. It’s a carte blanche. The reasons for anyone choosing to resign from any post established by the Constitution are entirely theirs – retirement, illness, career change, scandal – it does not matter.
Secondly, he focuses on another Section of the Constitution – Section 41(1)(e) – that does not deal with resignations, and instead deals with barring members from crossing the floor to another party.
He then claims that this section, Section 41(1)(e), is what should give effect to an MP’s resignation. Is he serious?
Section 41 deals with the tenure of MPs broadly, and speaks to a number of specific circumstances whereby an MP’s seat could become vacant, like ceasing to be a citizen or trying to cross the floor.
It also contains the requirement that should a seat become vacant by any of the modes discussed in that section, or for any other reason, a by-election must be held within 120 days.
Bizarrely, Sir Gerald has specifically quoted Section 41(1)(e), which deals exclusively with preventing MPs from crossing the floor to another political party once elected.
It is not entirely clear why Sir Gerald is quoting from a section that deals with members crossing the floor, as it does not arguably appear to have any immediate bearing on the current situation.
Section 41(1)(e) read in full states: “Every member of the House shall vacate his seat in the House if having been elected to the House by virtue of being a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from that party: Provided that he shall not be required to vacate his seat so long as he remains an independent member of the House.”
The provision is designed to prevent a person who was elected with one party from joining another party in the House while still an MP. If they leave their party, it allows them to sit only as an independent, but not to take up new allegiance to another party in the House.
If they attempt to do so, the constitution views them as having vacated their seat, and forces a by-election.
Confused yet? You should be.
That is because Sir Gerald’s assertions make no sense. What does this provision about not being able to switch sides once elected have to do with grounds for resignation? You and I know the answer: Nothing.
But Sir Gerald’s argument only gets more bizarre. In his letter to Simon, Sir Gerald further extrapolates and quotes a small portion of Section 41(1)(e), specifically the words “…a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from that party” and puts the words in emphasis in his letter to Simon.
The Speaker then claims to Simon that in order to resign, Simon must conform to Section 41(1)(e) of the Constitution.
But he does not explain what he means, and it is unclear what exactly the Speaker is advising Simon to do. What does he mean?
Does he mean that the only way an MP can resign from Parliament is to resign from their party? Does that not sound bizarre? Of course it does. Because it is.
No such requirement is stated or implied anywhere in the Constitution, and this is not a practice adhered to anywhere in the world.
We would never even countenance this ridiculous notion were it not for the fact that a senior attorney in a senior public office has put this nonsense out in public.
Importantly, despite what many have been misled to believe, the views of the Speaker do not impact upon the effectiveness of Simon’s resignation. In effect, Sir Gerald has merely expressed his opinion.
The Constitution gives him no authority to accept or reject any MP’s resignation once it is received by him in writing in accordance with Section 125.
He is not a judge. Perhaps we should be thankful he is not a judge. If he were, the courts of appeal might be overrun with litigants seeking relief from his judgements.
His arguments to Simon are clearly contrived, and it is shameful that he, Senator Marshall, and Prime Minister Browne, should waste the population’s time with these arguments as they seek to stall a constitutionally due by-election.
The government does not get to stall an election which is constitutionally due, merely because that election is politically inconvenient.
The Constitution is the law, and no amount of weaseling, misinterpretation, or gaslighting will absolve them of their duty to the law.
Simon’s resignation would seem to upend the implications of the case in court against him. That seems to be the troika’s biggest concern. The case was filed in support of the losing candidate, Marshall.
The litigant backed by Marshall had sought an injunction to prevent Simon from being sworn in back in February, but this was refused.
Another aspect of the case, the issue of the validity of the nomination, is awaiting a judgement.
Simon was sworn in as an MP on February 17 as a representative for St. Mary’s South.
Samantha should be ashamed of herself. She seems to want the court to parachute her into the office from which the people in St. Mary’s South ejected her. She needs to stop praying for a miracle from the court and go back to face her constituents.
Gaston Browne should be ashamed of himself. However, after 10 years, I believe he has sufficiently demonstrated that he lacks the emotional capacity to experience shame.
Sir Gerald, meanwhile, has totally embarrassed himself in this latest saga. He has no credibility left.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Beautifully composed piece.
“To hell with the constitution “
Well reasoned and compelling argument to indicate the nonsensical position of the Speaker. What I find utterly strange is that the Constitution addresses the matter of the resignation of members of Parliament, however, the Speaker is still making reference to what obtains in our countries and also to Erskine May. The Constitution is the supreme law and trumps any other documents local or foreign. The resignation of Kelvin Simon is such a simple matter that the Speaker has so incredibly misinterpreted.
in other countries
A verry succinct description of the constitutional dilemma that we have been plunged into in Antigua and Barbuda at the hands of these lawless people. The laughable thing is, they believe all of us are as stupid as the Labourites. No Gerald “Twat”, we do not have to be lawyers to understand the constitution. We are crystal clear concerning this matter. You, like Cutie (don’t know why the call this box cute) Benjamin, Gaston Browne and Samantha Marshall, continue to lie, mislead and spurt garbage.
Seriously, why don’t you do us all a favor and resign. Use anyone of the four reasons you sighted are the only reasons for a MP to resign.
I think that this matter of Mr Simon’s resignation demands an urgent relief and clarification in the courts. As it currently stands, the 120 day period in which a bi-election must be called has not started since according to the Speaker, Mr Simon has not properly resigned. Mr. Simon and his legal team must seek urgent redress through the courts or this matter would continue to drag on indefinitely. The Speakers interpretation of this whole resignation matter is bizarre to put it mildly.
@Audley – Why do you often sound like the proverbial dumb blonde? The gentleman currently has an issue before to court to deal with whether he was elected yet you wish for them to take a new matter to the court regarding whether he can resign. Is it so hard for you to understand that the answer to the matter already before the court will impact this second issue? Why make things unnecessarily cumbersome? The courts are already streched why waste their time unless you wish for it to slow down the initial issue filed by Aaron. Was his reason for resigning his need for a quick solution? There can be no bi-election until the first matter is dealt with hence in the meantime relax, drink some red wine
TENMAN you know when you chat your nonsense I must comment. The issue about Kelvin Simon’s resignation that the Speaker got so completely wrong is a matter that the court to pronounce on. The Speaker’s ridiculous position is that a member of Parliament cannot resign unless it is done pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution and not section 125. Only the latter deals with resignation and a member can resign at anytime and for any reason. To underscore the Speaker’s ridiculous argument, he says that a member can only resign (using England as his example) in the case of death, expulsion, disqualification or the dissolution of Parliament. TENMAN can you please tell me and perhaps the Speaker Sir Gerald what would be the reason for Boris Johnson’s recent resignation from the British Parliament.
is a matter that the court should pronounce on
@ tenman
DO NOT PATRONISE US: as you do your fellow minions.
You, Gaston and Cutie have the judiciary in your back pockets and call the shots as in the injunction with the Alfa Nero, so will you do with the electoral petition case for Aaron/ Samantha Marshall where YOUR CHOSEN JUDGE will adjudicate in her favour AWARDING THE SEAT TO HER ‘THROUGH THE BACK DOOR’. Mr Simon , just being one step ahead resigned and threw all your devious plans in a tail spin and mooted the whole process and so you had to use the GOAT ”Gerry” to carry out your devious plans even at the cost of RUINING WHATS LEFT OF HIS SORDID CAREER- TELL THE MAN GO SID DUNG AND STOP EMBARASSING HIMSELF.
Let the people decide via a by-election rather than giving them your PREFERRED MONSTER CANDIDATE!!!!!
This is the first time I’m in agreement with something that you opined until I read further. ‘There can be no by-election until the first matter is dealt with….. So why were you in St. Mary’s South, making the rounds, when was that first matter dealt with?
I second that. Precise and measured response to what the “To hell with the Constitution “ granite rock of a speaker that sits on his throne and can’t comprehend what he does believe in. As if he help write um. Watt you are loosing your luminescent doing the dirty work of a narcissist. History will record you and your disastrous presiding over this matter unless you reverse course and apply the law as written. Not you and RUMSHOP RADIO noise makers.
Who exactly is this writer? What’s his her training in law? How long have their practiced? What awards have they obtained? Without such info, If I were to give mind to his rantings I may as well head to the rum shop (Kennedys) and hear from the ready untrained experts there. Wisdom says I should give more credence to Sir Gerald who has been practicing law with distinctions, longer than I have been alive. Watching the Murdoch interview its clear Watt has put real thought into this issue
… and your educational background @ tenman? I bet it’s not a patch on Jonathan Willard’s.
A word of good advice for you @ tenman.
FINGER NEBA SAY LOOK YA, HIM SAY LOOK YONDER
Again, you can thank me later …👌🏽
TENMAN you ALP minions, propagandists and apologists are the best. When you cannot counter and argument you attack the messenger. Your comment about the writer of the article is a perfect example of your ad hominem argumentation. I saw Gerald Watt interview with Kieron Murdoch and it was disgraceful to say the least on Gerry’s part. He struggled and struggled to make sense and in the end all was complete nonsense. He should not have agreed to the interview. His bull shit interpretation of sections 41 and 125 of the Constitution is now recorded for posterity.
@Tenman
If Sir Gerald was once a brilliant lawyer, he certainly is not shining in this interpretation of the constitution. This could either be that he is loosing it on account of age or he is just working for the labour government.
Perfect pics of the 3. “The eyes are the window to the soul.”
Jonathan Willard sir, this is one of the best pieces of the written word that I’ve come across in a long long time. Outstanding! 👏🏿
You have correctly highlighted the collaborated TRIPARTITE nonsense that I also have mentioned recently.
In the United Kingdom THREE politicians have resigned around the same time as our own Honourable Kelvin ‘Shuggy’ Simon, and no-one is telling them they can’t resign.
What kind ah foolishness are ABLP playing at?
The Antiguan TRIPARTITE are making things up as they go along, and are just trying to CIRCUMVENT Section 125 (1) (b). Simple!
… and I thought that this government love to follow whatever the UK are doing? Give me a break!
Bravo. Excellent letter. Kieron Murdoch also did a masterful job with his interview of Gerry Watt. It was clear that Gerry was struggling to sound credible with the questions Kieron was putting to him. Gerry has lost his credibility and for what? To please Gaston and help Samantha? I would rather keep my dignity and integrity than throw it away to please such people.
Great piece Mr. Willard. The 3 stooges sounds they are auditioning to be ‘Key stone cops’. Evil, evil. The walls will tumble soon.
@tenman is really singing for his supper. No matter how you spin it, Twats made a complete fool of himself trying to please massa Gaston Browne. The case you keep referring to is moot. Man, you seem not to comprehend simple logics.
People like you are the reason this country has descended into this abyss. You will lie, revert to irrelevant mudslinging and character assassination just to prop up this idiot.He will be a civilian again.
Hi granny
Time for you to go rock in your rocking chair!!
Granny your time has come!
You’re too old to be speaker
Its comes with age, time to go
Give a younger person a chance.
When you cannot counter an argument
As we know gaston only knows about banking and not governance, plus Samantha have no clue on what she’s about……Plus the old fart watts is a retired lawyer who have no idea of what is going on around him……….It’s best antigua people force them out of office then,are we the laughing stock in the Caribbean??
Well crafted and explained… even my 9yr old son understands
What is wrong with those demonic demons the cow is now a chasnic sow. People it’s time to stand up and Cage all those derange dangerous animals.
Gerald Watts needs to go home and tender his great-grandchildren. He is losing his mind. Gassy has him eating from his palm. Gerald should know better not to let Gassy interpret the constitutional law to suit his ego. Gassy, you need to get in your thick head that the people of St Mary’s South do not want Samantha Marshall to represent them in parliament. Gassy, all the millions of dollars you’re planning to spend in St Mary’s South constituency will not help. Country people are different from city people, especially the people that live on the southern side of the island. I know you, Gassy, are targeting young and vulnerable people, especially the young men with your millions, but will you get a good awakening? We are keeping our eyes and ears to the ground for new faces you plan to pack into the constituency. I am telling you, non-nationals, stop letting Gassy bribe you into destroying our country. If you migrate here to be used by Gassy and his ABLP cronies, it is best you find another country to ruin. Other Antiguans might have been lucky to get the opportunity to migrate out to Canada 🇨🇦, England 🇬🇧, America, etc… But we who remain will fight for our country and who we want to represent us in parliament. Either you non-nationals are with the majority of Antiguans remain, or please keep out of our election. Shuggy Simons is for St Mary’s South.
Contary to what this Government believes we are a reading public. We do read the constitution, Gerald Watts please don’t try make a mockery of our intelligence…….by-elecrion now!!!!
Very well explained. Even my 3 year old daughter understands. The Dawg and his poodles are all political prostitutes so no amount of explanations or correct interpretations will stop them from prostituting because that’s the only way they know how to enslave and brain wash the people of this nation to ensure that they hold on to power. We the people in St. Mary’s South are ready to teach Seamonster and the ABLP another lesson on Good Representation. BRING UM ON!
This is exactly what the writer was saying. Just because he is an experienced lawyer doesn’t mean he is right. Lawyers are not always right.
Past behavior, indicative of current and future behavior !
Even a quick Google search people tells you that resignation in the UK is a legal fiction where the MP has to be appointed to another position in order for him to vacate his/ her seat if he simply no longer wants to be an MP. I thought Kieron would have done that basic research. I don’t understand how the person who talks most and shouts loudest is believed. That being said it is the A & B Constitution that is relevant. It is clear to lawyers in and outside of A & B that if you resign you vacate your seat that that can only be done is specified circumstances. I am not sure who advised the MP. This time I would certainly like to hear KC Simon and Henry. They are unusually silent. Otherwise the Speaker should take his position and stay completely out of the fray. It was sad to see him trying to defend a legal position to lay persons who understandably would not have the experience or have read the legal cases in the Commonwealth to understand or draw on to come to the likely conclusions that a Court would in the interpretation of the relevant sections. I agree that the issue should be confirmed or if you would prefer clarified by the Court, the sooner the better.
Please point us to your research and references. Chatter without substantiation is useless garbage.
… can you direct us all to your “quick Google search” data @ Please, so that we can also check that what you are writing is correct so that we “lay persons” (as you put it) can check for ourselves.
BRILLIANT REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY THOUGH. NICE! 🤜🏽🤛🏽
PLEASE RESEARCH we are aware of the convention and legal fiction in England where an MP who wants to resign is assigned to an “office of profit under the Crown” to facilitate the resignation. We have a written Constitution in Antigua which is quite clear on the question of resignation of an MP from Parliament and we do not have to rely on any convention or anything else from the UK or any other country. Section 125 of our Constitution is quite clear and Sir Gerald the Speaker got it all wrong when he tried to juxtapose and conflate sections 41 and 125 of the Constitution. Section 41 deals with an MP’s Tenure in Parliament and section 125 deals with Resignation from Parliament. They are two mutually exclusive sections. With respect to the Speaker’s interview with Kieron Murdoch, he struggled and struggled and struggled to make sense and in the end his explanation of his interpretation of the Constitution became even more nonsensical. The Speaker also said that in England you can only resign from Parliament because of death, expulsion, disqualification and dissolution of Parliament. Ask the Speaker under which of those four reasons did Boris Johnson recently resign from Parliament.
How can someone who is believed was “NOT DULY ELECTED” resign? If the court rules that he was not duly elected, then what? The question was asked to the court to determine if he was duly elected, until the court answers he cannot resign.
@ MAGA in Antigua
You mean Gaston, Cutie and Gerald Watts court that is used to carry out their WHIM AND FANCY. Their appointed JUDGE will simply carry out their wishes.
Did not the court authorised that he be seated?
You people make me sick. If the court rules in the UPP favour then they are Okay? I am sick of you Trump people!
MAGA you are forgetting the point that he was duly sworn in as a member of the House. Since he was sworn in as a member of the House, he can also resign as a member of the House.
Come on @ MAGA, respond in kind to @ authority and Charles Tabor, who have correctly highlighted shuggy’s rights as a legally sworn in and authorised Member of the House.
We await with baited breath …
UPP and its supporters are just like the Republicans. There is no light between both parties.
@ MAGA in Antigua
I guess you are not an ABLP supporter – I do not think you live in Antigua, because you WOULD KNOW THAT THE ABLP IS THE PARTY OF VIRTUE- THE COURT WILL NOT RULE IN UPP FAVOUR BECAUSE GASTON , SAMANTHA, CUTIE AND GERALD HAS ALREADY BLATANTLY SAID THAT THEY CAN GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL WIN THE CASE.
The only way they could guarantee that is if the JUDICIARTY ‘is in their pockets’- which in fact they are!
Finally someone on here who have the facts right, not lies and conjectures, but just straight up facts. Well written piece sir, no crazy big words to prove who is smarter than who, but just simple plain ole English that even the so-call ‘regular folks’ among us can read. Bravo.
Comments are closed.