Yesterday in the House of Representatives, the Opposition called the Referendum Amendment Bill a trojan horse, saying that it promised the electorate the power to recall – while taking away the power to approve certain changes to the Constitution. The Prime Minister was not impressed. He explained that the referendum could never approve or disapprove constitutional changes in the first place and when the PUP passed that law, it was just a red herring.
But some prominent PUP's took their case to court today – before the Chief Justice asking him for leave for judicial review of the Referendum Amendment Bill. And the Chief Justice granted it plus an injunction barring the Attorney General from taking steps to make it law. Lisa Shoman and Anthony Sylvester prepared the submission and explained why it’s so important to them.
Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Applicants
“The contention would be that even if the Prime Minister seeks to change the law, that there is an arguable case for the fact that the referendum would still have to be held. However, so that citizens are not put in the position of having to defend rights, when rights are already extinguished or rather so that you are able to defend your rights before you lose your rights, that is why it is important and that is why we believe the Chief Justice has granted an interim injunction in preventing the Attorney General from taking steps to have the Governor General sign this bill into law.”
Anthony Sylvestre, Attorney for Applicants
“It is a right that allows a citizen and an elector to actually voice
his opinion by way of vote in referendum when any of his or her constitutional rights will be amended. And as the law being proposed presently stands, there will be some serious amendments being made to section five of our constitutional rights, which is the right to constitutional liberty.”
Lisa Shoman,
“One of the issue that was raised yesterday I believe by the Hon. Prime Minister in the House which is the issue of whether the Referendum Act is inconsistent with the Constitution. My reply to the Chief Justice, which he didn’t comment on but which he seemed to accept is that no it is not inconsistent with the constitution, it in fact complements the constitution by serving to further safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms by giving people the chance to participate in our democracy by voicing whether they wish those fundamental rights and freedoms to be changed.
It is because those rights are so essential and so important that I believe that this is the reason why the Chief Justice has granted not only leave for judicial review but why also he has granted the interim injunction.”
One unusual footnote is that the Solicitor General agreed to the permission for judicial review. Shoman and Sylvester have 14 days to file that but the Prime Minister says that when they do – he’s assured of the outcome.
Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
“The courts always err on the side of caution that once somebody can show that there is even the slightest germ of an argument to be made, permission to bring judicial review is next to automatic. I will tell you that I am absolutely confident that that is a case brought by the PUP that is absolutely doomed to failure. So I have no doubt that at the end of the day it will be just as I said. That will go absolutely nowhere because from every conceivable point of view, the arguments that are being advanced are completely wrong headed.”
No date for hearing has been set and until then the Referendum Amendment Bill is in limbo.
