Email

Print

Tonight, the ICJ referendum is in limbo - and no one can say for sure whether it will or won't happen as scheduled on April 10th - which is next week Wednesday.  This is after an earth shattering decision this evening by Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin.  He granted the PUP an injunction restraining Government form going ahead with the referendum. 

But, still, that doesn't mean it won't happen - and, at this hour, there are more questions than answers.  

And we'll address all of it for you tonight, to try and get some clarity if you should get ready to vote "yes" or "no" next week.  

But, let's start at the beginning, with today's hearing in the Supreme Court.  

As we told you on Monday, PUP attorney, Eamon Courtenay made several legal arguments, urging the Chief Justice to grant an injunction putting the referendum on hold. 

At 2:00 this afternoon - the Chief Justice read a judgement which took 45 minutes.  At the end, he announced that he is granting the injunction. His courtroom was packed to standing room only, and the PUP supporters cheered loudly when he announced that he was ruling in the PUP's favor.

Outside, PUP attorney, Eamon Courtenay explained the judge's reasoning:

Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for the Claimants
"What has happened just now is that the Chief Justice has found that there is an arguable case, that the procedure under which the referendum has been launched by the Government, may be irregular. We are satisfied that we have more than a good argument to make on it, and as a result of his concern as to the propriety of the referendum process, he has issued an injunction restraining the holding of the referendum on Wednesday."

Reporter
"Clarify, sir, how long does the injunction last? Or how long can it last?"

Eamon Courtenay, SC
"Until trial or further order of the court."

Reporter
"Which could take months or years?"

Eamon Courtenay, SC
"Whenever the trial of the matter is. It's like any other injunction. We had looked high and low for a precedent, where a court had stopped a referendum from taking place. We didn't any, and so it is certainly a landmark decision. I would like to pay tribute to Anthony Sylvestre, to Dickie and Kareem, the guys who did the original research, and the rest of the team. There are other attorneys who joined us, and we worked very hard. I think the claimants who had put their names on the paper, ought to be congratulated, and I think that they are true democrats. These are people who have said in the evidence that they want a referendum to be held, but they want it to be held legally, and after a proper education campaign."

Reporter
"In relation to the referendum, the matters to be argued, what are those exactly?"

Eamon Courtenay, SC
"Well, the first issue is under the referendum, you can have a referendum on four basis. The first is a resolution of the National Assembly that says there's a matter of national importance, and there should be a referendum on that. The Government went under Section 2.1.D, which provides that if there is a proposed settlement, that that settlement be put to the people for their approval, or their rejection. And I pointed out to the Chief Justice in arguments that there is no proposed settlement, and for there to be a settlement, you need to know the terms. And nobody knows the terms. So, the CJ looked at that and said, hold on, there's no proposed settlement. So, what is it that the people are voting on. They're voting on a dispute mechanism going to the ICJ. Well, that is not provided for in the referendum act under Section 2.1.D. What the Prime Minister has been running away from is exactly what the claimants have been demanding. If the Prime Minister wants to have this referendum lawfully, he should move the resolution, first of all, under Section 2.1.A, but that requires a debate in the House of Representatives. And that resolution has to be passed. And it is quite obvious, that he's afraid of it, and the reason that he is afraid of it is that there are members in House who are not going to come out publicly in the National Assembly and vote in support of what he wants to do. So, he doesn't want to take that risk, and he has been fighting tooth and nail to act in an anti-democratic way, and not respect the constitution and the referendum act."