Lies, trickery, deception and judicial absurdities

Roseau, Dominica (TDN) —- Let me see if I get this right.

He said "no law including the Constitution" could prevent him from being nominated as the candidate for the Vielle case constituency in the December 2009 election, and Justice Gertel Thom agrees even though the evidence is clear that he was not qualified to be nominated. Who needs a Constitution? Who gives a damn about rule of law?

Judge Gertel Thom was not convinced that Skerrit and St Jean were French citizens on election day 2009.

Our Constitution is the supreme law. It provides qualifying criteria for membership in parliament and confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear and determine any question of membership validity.

Section 32.1.a of the Constitution provides that "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Representative or Senator if he is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state".

It is settled law that possession of a foreign passport is an acknowledgment of allegiance to the foreign power.

Roosevelt Skerrit, a self confessed citizen of France, addressed constituents of Vielle Case by letter dated 17th December 2009, on allegations that he was not qualified to contest the election on account of "my dual citizenship and/or my possession of a foreign passport".

So for 2 years, in the constitutionally authorized determination of the validity of his membership in Parliament, Roosevelt Skerrit (sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution) was required, as an honourable member of the parliament, to answer truthfully and completely one simple question:

"Do you or do you not have a French Passport?"

For 2 years, his lawyers showed off their expertise in trickery, deception and the manufacture of legal technicality; and thereby succeeded in preventing the court from examining the critical evidence of his French passport.

The judge even suppressed the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its process in her skillful facilitation of the machinations of the respondents to conceal evidence and leverage their silence. Today she ruled in their favour on account of the absence of the very same passport evidence that she prevented from coming into the court on two separate occasions.

We are not celebrating the triumph of truth. Mr Skerrit had a french passport and was allowed to withhold the truth from the court that is required by the Constitution to confirm the validity of his membership in Parliament. So a liar has his way and the great rejoicing in the streets is quite simply the glorification of lies, trickery, deception and judicial absurdities.

HOW LONG?

NOT LONG!