And prior to the dismissal of Ramlogan's claim, the BPM was asked whether the two cases could be joined. Morgan explained that they hadn't discussed it yet.
Paul Morgan, BPM
"We don't have the authority to join them but the court can join those cases if they want to, to make sure that their management of the issues is efficient, that's my understanding of it. Maybe the attorney can say whether we can apply to join them but that is not at this time in our discussions. At this time, we would like the court to give us a hearing in order to determine whether or not schedule 1 is constitutional. Anything short of that is not gonna work because the elections is a milestone that will define what will happen in the next period of government."
Sharon Pitts, Attorney, BPM
"I believe that with respect to the matter and there might be indication that the other claimants in the other claim might be intent on applying for joinder of their subsequent action to this prior matter consolidation and it seems to me of its own discretion and volition, the court can order the matter joined without any formalities. Where we are at this juncture, it seems to be that the executive or government and this sounds inconsistent or oxymoronic, they wanted quickly to discard of this matter and then otherwise to stall it beyond and to bury it under a mountain and tsunami of pleadings so that there would be further pleadings applications as though to wary and tax the time and have it run out beyond the election. What it goes to though is the legitimacy of a government, any government which is formed out of this will be called into question but I believe as political decisions go and political propagandists, they figure, you know what, after the fact we will deal with that and we will promise again, we always promise the people."
Email
Print