For sure, you remember that historic House Meeting of August 26th, 2016. That's the day when the House of Representatives devolved into a chaotic mess. Who can forget that scene when the PUP's Julius Espat, was named by former House Speaker Michael Peyrefitte, and he was forcibly dragged out of the House by members of the security forces.
He was suspended from the House, and stripped of his salary as an elected parliamentarian, after his outburst to former Speaker Peyrefitte, who refused to entertain him on the topic of corruption in public life.
Espat and his fellow party members maintained that his ejection was unlawful because the Speaker and the UDP parliamentarians did not follow the proper procedures to call for a vote to name him in the House. In the months that followed that fiasco, Espat sued the former Speaker along with Eddie Webster, the Clerk of the National Assembly. His case went before Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin, but the Chief Justice refused to entertain his claim, striking it out of court.
He appealed that outcome to the Court of Appeal, and after months of deliberation, the Court of Appeal returned this morning with a majority decision that the Chief Justice made the wrong decision.
Espat's case must now go back before the Supreme Court, and he'll get his opportunity to argue before a new judge why he thinks that the former speaker mishandled his suspension.
After the Court of Appeal judgement was handed down, we spoke with his attorney, Andrew Marshalleck about the important reversal:
Andrew Marshalleck, SC - Attorney for Julius Espat
"I'm sure everybody can remember what happened in the house when the Speak purportedly named Mr. Espat, and had him physically removed from the premises. Well, immediately following that, we had suit alleging that those actions were taken in breach of the constitutional rights of Mr. Espat, specifically that the issue of the naming was never put to the House for a vote, and that under the rules, properly, the House should have voted on whether or not he should be named. Instead, the Speaker usurped that power, and exercised it without putting it to a vote. What happened at first instance, in the court below, the Chief Justice acceded to an application to strike out the claim. He found that the allegations of constitutional breach were without merit, and struck the claim on that basis."
"We had appealed against that decision and Court of Appeal just now handed down its ruling on the appeal, setting aside the Chief Justice's order and remitting the application to strike [out] back to another judge in the court below for hearing."
Daniel Ortiz
"What is your client seeking ultimately, should he be successful this time around at the Supreme Court?"
Andrew Marshalleck, SC
"Well, he's seeking vindication of his constitutional rights. One, it seems to me that from the whole episode, having reviewed what happened, that - with the greatest respect to all our parliamentarians - none of them were really familiar with the process and the rules for naming a member. And the whole proceedings when awry - terribly awry. And hopefully, if we get a consideration in merits, we know how that should be done in the future."
Email
Print