By Robert A. Emmanuel
As attorneys for former St Mary’s South MP Kelvin Simon revel in the dismissal of the election petition against their client, it perhaps was not as straightforward for the legal team nearly two weeks ago.
In a June 8 letter, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Gerald Watt KC, initially rejected Simon’s resignation, arguing that under section 41(1)(g) of the Constitution, he had not given up his party allegiance and therefore had not properly resigned.
Speaking at a media briefing following the court ruling on Wednesday, attorney Kendrickson “Kenny” Kentish said he was originally disappointed with the Speaker.
The lawyer said that the Speaker’s assertions made to fellow local media agency Twin Island Media during an interview were unfounded.
“It was quite painful, and I say that with all sincerity. I have known Mr Watt since infancy … and we, as lawyers, know that we can all have differing opinions—that is what our profession is built on.
“But none of the arguments advanced by Sir Gerald, with all due respect to him and his [more than] 50 years at the bar, had any substance,” Kentish expressed.
In the interview first aired on June 15, Sir Gerald sought to argue that Simon could not resign as an MP without reason.
Kentish believed that the Speaker’s references to the laws of Canada and the United Kingdom were ungrounded as he said the law in the Commonwealth was clear on resignations.
“He referred to the law of England and Wales, but they do not have a written Constitution; we do, and our Constitution sets out what is to exactly happen in this particular case.
“He referred to the law in Canada, but that has no relevance there as we have different provisions here and, having regard to this last letter, it seems as though he had an instinctive difficulty with it,” Kentish said.
The Speaker later reconsidered the issue and accepted the June 7 resignation letter as valid, which led to the election petition becoming moot.
One of the notable moments from Monday’s preliminary hearing, which led to the dismissal of the election petition, was the passionate presentation of Dr David Dorsett, the attorney for Sir Gerald, who argued that the issue was now academic, meaning it has no practical relevance.
The argument shocked the audience as, until recently, the Speaker was adamant that Simon’s resignation was invalid and allowing his resignation would have political consequences.
According to the attorneys for the former St Mary’s South MP, that moment came as a shock to them also.
“We were caught just as off-guard as everyone else in the courtroom. We saw his submission earlier because they came in on Friday evening and although we saw the submissions and the affidavit of the Speaker, I said to Kenny Kentish ‘I am still in disbelief’,” attorney Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw said during a media briefing on Wednesday.
Dr Dorsett, during his presentation, argued that any ruling on the petition had no legal consequences for Simon as he had already resigned and that the law called for a by-election to deal with a vacant parliamentary seat.
Kentish expressed thanks to the Speaker for his about turn, stating that “the nation was almost plunged into a constitutional crisis when his resignation letter was purportedly rejected by the Speaker of the House, we are very grateful that the Speaker changed his position and saw the light on the road to Damascus”.
Meanwhile, lawyer Charlesworth Tabor was sceptical of the Speaker’s assertion that allowing parliamentarians to resign for any reason would have practical political consequences and needed reformation.
“I am eagerly awaiting his legal opinion to see what constitutional crisis can arise from section 125 dealing with resignation,” Tabor said.