Email

Print

When the case management conference was concluded today, Lisa Shoman told the press what the government side is arguing:

Lisa Shoman, SC - Attorney for the Government
"Today was originally scheduled for first hearing. Case management usually occurs at first hearing. Mr. Courtenay wrote a letter on Friday to ask for an adjournment. As you know, he is in the Senate, but he also indicated that he has filed a cross appeal, which we just received this morning. And so, the Chief Justice has granted an adjournment for case management, until April 29th. And at that point, he will hear all matters, including our application to discharge the injunction."

Reporter
"Talk us about that application."

Lisa Shoman, SC
"Okay, it's pretty simple. As you know, the injunction was placed on specific grits, and it enjoined the proposed referendum. Now, in the headnote of the case, the proposed referendum has a date, April 10th, 2019. So, what we've said the court is that this is not an open-ended injunction. It was meant specifically to stop the holding of the April 10th referendum. That is not in question, or an issue many longer, and we therefore believe that the injunction should discharged. So, he will hear us on the matter on the 29th of April 2019."

Reporter
"In the of the substantive matter, when it comes to the referendum. I think the Prime Minister explained last week that - it's this specific as well - the writs. So, how does that play into the first hearing Schedule for the 29th?"

Lisa Shoman, SC
"Well, this is the point, if the writs on which the injunction were date specific, and meant for specific writs, those writs are not in existence right now. So, what are you enjoining. There is no referendum being held under those writs, and in fact, there are no longer any writs. They've expired. So, that would be the heart of our contention."

We also got an opportunity to speak with Kareem Musa, one of the attorneys on the legal team representing the PUP which brought the lawsuit. He said that because he and the legal team learned about this Government application this morning, the judge had to adjourn the hearing to give them proper opportunity to take advice from their clients:

Kareem Musa - Attorney for the PUP
"This morning was the date set for the first hearing of the substantive matter that is before the courts. As you know, previously, the Chief Justice had made an injunction order, and there were 2 grounds that we had applied under. One was that the Special Agreement was unconstitutional, and therefore, we should stop the referendum. And the second ground was that the writ itself was defective, in that it did not fall under the requirements of the referendum act. The Chief Justice had ruled on the second limb, and granted the injunction based on that. And so, the second issue which is the constitutionality of the Special Agreement is now currently before the Court of Appeal. And we go there on Thursday to address the case management conference moving forward on that point."

Reporter
"Did the party expect the Government to file an application to discharge the injunction because of the new bill, and because the date has passed?"

Kareem Musa
"Not at all. We hadn't gotten any information from the Government until this morning when I should up at court. My Learned Senior, Miss Shoman, indicated to me that they wanted to apply to discharge the current injunction that is in place. As you know, the clients, our clients are not required to be here today, so, I haven't had an opportunity to consult with them to get their take, and also to consult with Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, because he is currently before the Senate. And so, the judge, quite rightly and properly set that as a separate date, not to be heard today, but on the 29th of April."

So as you heard, the Special Agreement case has now ended up before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal at the same time. We understand that out of an abundance of caution, the PUP filed a cross appeal. You'll remember that when the Chief Justice granted the injunction, he gave the reasons for his decision, and he dismissed the ground from the PUP which goes to the heart of their case. That is their claim that the Special Agreement is unconstitutional because it was not ratified by both the House and the Senate. They argued that point in front of the Chief Justice and he rejected it.

As a result, there is uncertainty about what the Supreme Court's stance is on the PUP's biggest issue. The argument was rejected in the injunction hearing, which you can consider as the preliminary fight before the big fight. The Chief Justice has not indicated whether or not the PUP's main complaint is something he's still willing to hear them on, since it failed in the injunction hearing. So, the PUP filed an appeal to ensure that their case remains live.

Case management for that is set to take place on Thursday, when the Appeal Court will decide how they want to approach it. They may chose to stay that appeal until the Chief Justice has clearly indicated what he stance is on the Special Agreement.

It is interesting that the same case is running simultaneously in these 2 high courts, and we'll be at the Court of Appeal on Thursday to tell you how that hearing goes.