PM Gaston Browne Dismisses Legal Challenge to MP Anthony Smith’s Appointment
Prime Minister Gaston Browne has rejected claims that the legal challenge against Anthony Smith, Member of Parliament for All Saints West, holds any merit.
Speaking about the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment, Browne said that thorough consultations were conducted with several legal experts before the decision was finalized.
“When comrade Smith’s appointment was made, I not only touched base with several attorneys locally, including Attorney General Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin, but also consulted one of the most renowned regional constitutional lawyers,” Browne stated.
“We don’t do things by guesswork. They cannot win,” he asserted.
Browne’s remarks come as political opponents and critics of Smith have questioned the legality of his appointment, raising concerns about whether it adhered to constitutional requirements.
Despite these claims, the Prime Minister emphasized that all necessary legal protocols were followed meticulously.
The legal challenge is part of ongoing political disputes in the All Saints West constituency, but Browne’s remarks make it clear that his administration is standing firm in defense of Smith’s legitimacy as an Independent member of the House.
The opposition continues to press forward with its legal efforts. However, Browne’s confidence suggests that the government believes the challenge will ultimately be dismissed.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
He was VERY CONFIDENT about SHUGY would have lost if they (A.L.P.) went to Court.
How did that work out again?
If the ABLP wins this and the result is as the PM asserts, this could be a model for the Gaston Browne’s administration.
Could it be where the PM can seek out others on the opposition party and offer them assignments, not necessarily a portfolio as an Agricultural Minister, but little assignments. I’m not sure if that constitutionally legal, but I once heard former PM Hon. Lester Bird gave an assignment to then opposition and Editor of a newspaper Mr. Tim Hector an assignment to represent Antigua Barbuda overseas because of Mr. Hector’s expertise as a Historian. It did not sway him to the then ALP side, but I believe it softened him up a bit. This is also a way that the ABLP can seek to show that a person is not worthy or if they succeed, it show that the ABLP is about Nation building and an “All inclusive Political Party”. This is a win win.
My assessment, assertions and assumptions are all just what they are. I would love to hear thought on this.
So one day Smith resigns, next day he’s sworn in as member of your cabinet. But you had consulted with numerous regional constitutional experts on the legality of this travesty before acting. So how long, really, had you and Smith been planning this political betrayal? If, as you are so convinced, the Court rules in your favour, then the intent of Sec 41is completely nullified by the Court and we can all say, as your Speaker of Parliament once did: “TO HELL WITH THE CONSTITUTION!” Let anarchy break loose!
I submitted my analysis and yes, the UPP is unable to win, if they are unable to prove the defendant has joined the ABLP political party, as those other acts he is authorized to do as a politician and an independent are irrelevant in proving whether he has violated the law in terms of unlawfully keeping such seat he is allowed to keep as an independent MP.
The only relevant evidence is whether he joined the party. Not whether he joined the cabinet and not whether he sides with the policies of ABLP.
Without proof of ABLP membership, there is no case for ABLP to win.
They have already gotten my analysis and this does not mean I support any of the parties. I actually I do not.
UNTIL THE OPPOSITION UNDERSTANDS FIRSTLY THAT WE HAVE THREE ARMS OF GOVERNANCE, THE LEGISLATIVE, THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIAL AND THAT EACH IS INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER. SECONDLY THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRIME MINISTER THE RIGHT TO APPOINT ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TO THE CABINET( THE EXECUTIVE) AND THAT THIS APPOINTMENT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR POSITION IN PARLIAMENT. IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT BUT IT IS LEGAL
How does this not change his position in parliament @Dion Pell. You make no sense.
Anthony Smith was elected to parliament by two thousand plus voters,on a UPP ticket. He betrayed these folks,sold his soul for 6 million and perks, and now sits as an INDEPENDENT? How,pray tell,is this not a change? Accepting a ministry negates his claimed independence.
But the courts will decide. Again, I say, this kind of deception and betrayal is a disgrace to democracy anywhere.
I would not be too trusting of anything the DAWG says. He was proven wrong in SMS.
Say you’re living with a woman and you both have two children and after a while you no longer want to live with her. So you take up with another woman who buys you a brand new BMW and nice clothes too.
She is hurt and angry and wants revenge. Her lawyer say she can curse him out and say what a nasty so and so he is. But apart from must minding his children (maybe cutting the grass on the Sea View Farm field so she can have a meeting), he has no responsibility to her.
Does she get another lawyer who would take her case with the charges that she was so good to him, and she gave him two children, and her mother had told her not to take up with him because he was with that other woman long time?
Maybe she has to do something to get rid of her rage, but her new lawyer should tell her other things, like find another man. But he cannot tell her she can puncture the four tires on the brand new BMW, nor she cannot let him see the children he is minding.
He can tell her, but maybe he won’t, that she does not need a lawyer because, even if he is a dutty so and so, he has not done anything illegal and she does not have a case.
@Watching, Please put aside your personal feelings and consider what i said carefully
1. The constitution allow an elected member to resign his party whip and remain independent
2. The same constitution allows the Prime Minister to appoint any member of the house to be a minister in The Executive
3. The Executive and The Legislative are two separate, independent arm of government( at least on paper)
Regardless of his position outside of Parliament as long as he declared himself independent in the lower house Mr Anthony Smith is on legal grounds and the court with verify this to be so.
Your personal views and opinion and thinking are of no value to the court…..AND THE UPP LAWYERS KNOWS THIS, THEY ARE JUST PLAYING POLITICS.
Lastly is not what you know, its what you can prove that make or break a case.
No man is perfect, shit no person is perfect,but I will always respect Shuggy for doing the honorable thing and resign, then went and win his seat in a Bi-election.
While many are arguing the legality of this matter, they are failing to actually look at the obviously morality bankrupt, back stabbing, sorry of a move this man Mr Smith pulled off against the people that voted for him.
It’s the people that were betrayed, and for this Judas to even sit there and hide behind some legal term, is just disgusting in itself.
The audacity to even blame the UPP for him leaving and betraying the voters, is just vomiting, and shows you how low down this MR Smith is.
Browne you can dismiss the Anthony Smith court case as much as you like, but as you know (or maybe you don’t!) the law MUST be allowed to run its full course.
The voting public in All Saints West voices must be heard. You are their SERVANT not their MASTER.
You’d do well to remember dat!!!
UNLESS YOU KNOW SOMETHING WE DON’T?!
Hmmmmm 🤔
LITMUS TEST: …VOID OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES
No arguments shall stand that are ‘…VOID OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES.’
FIRST AND FOREMOST
Shall be a ‘Reference’ to one of the ‘…Five Founding Constitutional Principles.’
Clearly, ‘FOREMOST’ shall be the ‘…PREAMBLE C.’
This speaks to the citizens:
(a) ‘…Playing a Role in the National Life: then there is
(b) …The Constitutional Provisions- SECTION 69 (4).’
This speaks to the prerogative of:
(i) ‘…The ‘…PRIME MINISTER: and
(ii) …Role of the ‘…GOVERNOR GENERAL.’
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE
The ‘…Prime Minister’ exercising his ‘…Constitutional Prerogative,’ is simply required to render ‘…ADVICE’ to the ‘…GOVERNOR GENERAL’ for the ‘…APPOINTMENT’ of a Member of the ‘…HOUSE or SENATE’ to be a Member of the Executive’ [CO: 1981: Section 69 (4)].
NO LAW PROFESSOR/COLLEGE DEGREE
This clearly needs ‘…NO LAW PROFESSOR,’ to explain, nor ‘…COLLEGE DEGREE’ for comprehension.
It is a ‘…PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT,’ run by ‘…PARLIAMENTARIANS.
‘
REASONABLE DRAWN INFERENCES
Still, while ‘…Reasonable Inferences are capable of being ‘…DRAWN’ for his apparent:
(a) ‘…SELF-SERVING: and apparent
(b) …SELF-DESTRUCTIVE TREACHEROUS BEHAVIOR,’ why attack ‘…MP/MINISTER ANTHONY SMITH,’ for the ‘…Constitutional Roles’ played by:
(i) The Prime Minister: and the
(ii) …Governor General,’ acting in their respective constitutional capacity?’
WALK GOOD.