The court briefly adjourned for a few hours to give the attorneys for both sides an opportunity to consult with their clients on this application. When they returned before the Chief Justice this afternoon, Lisa Shoman announced that the Government had decided to withdraw its application to lift the injunction.
From the government's perspective, it cannot interfere with next week Wednesday's referendum, and so it's an academic fight to engage in. The PUP claimants see it differently, and when they exited court, we asked both sides to discuss the Government's 180 degree turnaround.
Here are their diverging interpretations:
Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for the Claimants
"The government applied to lift the injunction that the chief justice had granted on the 3rd of April and we took an objection to the application. We said to the chief justice that they had appeal his decision and we had cross appealed and therefore this matter was in the court of appeal. That being the case, we said that the chief justice had no further jurisdiction to deal with the injunction. To put it in a very simple way what we said to the court was that once the government had come to the wrong court with the wrong application seeking to have the injunction discharged. They ask for time and the chief justice gave them until 3pm this afternoon and when they returned to court without expressly saying so, they in effect said that they withdrew their application. So effectively they have said that we are right and they are wrong."
Lisa Shoman, SC - Attorney for GOB
"I have a duty and an obligation to consult with the defendants. I did so and specifically because Mr. Courtenay stood up in court and said this morning that he had or that the claimants had no issue with the factual basis of what was contained in those affidavits - that the defendants decided since really what the bottom line is that it is a moot point - that we would simply withdraw the application and knowing that there is no challenge to next week's referendum, that withdrawal was taken rather than prolong a fight that was no longer necessary at all."
Reporter
"The position of the government as described by their lead attorney at this point is that the injunction has no real effect."
Eamon Courtenay
"I think the focus is on the wrong thing. You have to understand that the claimants in this case are challenging the special agreement, right, and the chief justice you will recall said that he didn't think we made out a case on the special agreement limb, which we have taken to the court of appeal. We want the court of appeal to rule on that so that we can have a determination as to whether or not the special agreement is constitutional. If this injunction is lifted. it would have removed the foundation on which our appeal rested and therefore we had to resist that and so that the matter remains in the court of appeal and we have every hope and confidence that we will prevail in this issue. It's a very important constitutional law issue where these representatives have not had a chance to debate the special agreement."
Email
Print