Williams (left) and Holness
Barbara Gayle, Justice Coordinator
KINGSTON, Jamaica:
The Constitutional Court today reserved its decision in the case brought by former Opposition Senator Arthur Williams against Andrew Holness over the use of an undated resignation letter to secure his removal from the Senate.
Williams is contending that Holness’ use of the letter to axe him from the Upper House last year was a breach of his constitutional rights of freedom of association, expression and conscience.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General has entered the matter as an interested party because of the constitutional implications.
The Attorney General’s representative, attorney-at-law, Carlene Larmond, provided legal authorities, which she said supported the department’s position that the arrangement between Holness and Williams would be in breach of public policy.
The lawyer cited a case from Malaysia which involved the use of an undated resignation letter by a political party to remove a legislator from the parliament.
The Malaysian court held that it is against public policy for any legislator to be made obliged by any political party to resign from the parliament arguing that to recognise such an arrangement would amount to a degradation of the Honourable House which is the fountain of democracy.
In explaining the judgement, Larmond told the court that it can be implied from the Malaysian court ruling, that the use of an undated letter of resignation as a means of reprisal for an act of a member of the lower House of Parliament is against public policy.
She said even though Williams claimed that there are certain constitutional breaches and although he has not named the particular breaches, it is for the court to assess whether those rights have been violated.
The Attorney General's representative added: "even if a claimant, in a constitutional claim, comes to the court without clean hands, the court is not barred from hearing the constitutional claim because the court’s ultimate goal is to protect the Constitution."
Questioned by the court as to how the senate dismissal breached Williams' constitutional rights to freedom of conscience, association and expression, his lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett said, the termination of an individual's appointment on ulterior motive or wrong choice can result in constitutional action.
In reference to the pre-signed and undated letters, Larmond noted that even though Williams was the one who devised the documents, the court could not say it will not hear the matter because it has to examine whether the Constitution has been breached and give precedence to public interest of the matter.
Larmond said it is for the court to assess whether Williams’ rights were breached.
Meanwhile, this afternoon, attorney-at-law, Georgia Gibson Henlin, who is representing Holness, contended that the use of the letters was valid and constitutional.
She told the court that Holness acted on the authority given to him by Williams to use the letters as deemed necessary.
She argued that Holness was not limited in his use of the pre-signed and undated letters.
Gibson-Henlin urged the court to refuse relief sought by Williams.
The hearing began yesterday when Barnett, argued that the letters were used to punish the former senator in the aftermath of the internal Jamaica Labour Party leadership elections.
Williams has admitted to crafting the letters before he and other senators were appointed in 2012.
WATCH: The Gleaner Minute
Follow us on Twitter:
@JamaicaGleaner
Follow us on Instagram:
jamaicagleaner
Watch our videos on YouTube:
Jamaica Gleaner
onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com