COMMENTARY: The proposed electoral amendments in Dominica, misinformation and fighting over nothing

Tony Astaphan

Power of the Parliament

  1. The Constitution vested the exclusive power in the Parliament to make laws for election matters by sections 40(5) and 41 of the Constitution. It is also the exclusive authority of the Parliament to legislate on matters which it considers ought be illegal or offences, or which the public interest requires  be clarified or enacted into law.

 

The purposes of the amendments

  1. The purposes of the amendments in summary are:
  • to clarify and codify the law in relation to bribery and treating;
  • to provide for confirmation of electors, and the reconstruction of the lists with persons who do not confirm or meet the requirements,  are dead or overseas for more than 5 years immediately preceding confirmation are  removed from the list; and
  • to provide for ID cards for the purposes of an election; and

 

The 5-year rule and right to vote

  1. In Quinn Leandro v Dean Jonas the Court of Appeal ruled that a person duly registered has a constitutional right to vote.

 

  1. In John Abraham v Kelvar Darroux the High court held  a person who has resided overseas even for more than 5 years has a right to vote unless objected to and an objection has been successful.

 

  1. In Parry v Brantley, the Court of Appeal held   that no elector who is duly registered  can be removed from the register without strict compliance with  the statutory regime for hearings and due process.

 

  1. The confirmation process proposed by the amendments will lead to the due process removal of persons in the Diaspora who have been away from Dominica consistently for 5 years prior to their application for confirmation.

 

The history of the offences of bribery and treating in election law

  1. The law of bribery has never existed without the essential ingredient of the corrupt intention. More importantly, the common law and statutory offences of bribery and treating in Dominica have always required strict proof of a corrupt intention; i.e. an intention to corruptly induce a person to vote for a candidate which he would not otherwise vote for.

 

  1. Section 55 of the House of Assembly ( Elections ) Actprovides

 

“The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery within the meaning of this Act:

  • every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as mentioned above on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

 

  • every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or procure, or offers, promises, or promise to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce such elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as mentioned above on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

 

  • every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as mentioned above to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure, or endeavour to procure, the return of any person as an elected member of the House of Assembly, or to vote of any elector at any election;

 

  • every person who, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement, procures or engages, promises or endeavours to procure the return of any person as an elected member of the House of Assembly or the vote of any elector at any election;

 

  • every person who advances or pays, or causes to be paid any money to or to the use of any other person, with the intent that the  money, or any part thereof, shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who knowingly pays or causes to be paid, any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any such election;

 

  • every elector who, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote, or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any such election;

 

  • every person who, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any such election.”

 

 Bribery

  1. As shown in section 55 of the House of Assembly (Elections) Act above, the existence of a corrupt intent or motive to induce is the golden thread which transforms an otherwise legal act into the offence of bribery.

 

  1. The law as to the provision of travelling expenses for a voter is summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition, Volume 15, para. 770 at page 421:

“The unconditional payment, or promise of payment, to a voter of his travelling expenses is not bribery, but the payment or promise of payment to a voter of his travelling expenses on the condition, express or implied, that he would vote for a particular candidate is bribery.

 

  1. Section 57 B of the proposed amendments to the offence of bribery provides

“Transportation   

For the avoidance of doubt the transportation of electors or the facilitation of the transportation of electors to or within Dominica for the purposes of an election does not constitute an offence unless the transportation od provided or  facilitated with the intention to corruptly induce an elector to vote for a particular candidate or party for which the elector would not otherwise  have vote.”

 

  1. The section must be read in context and as a whole. It is manifestly wrong to focus only on the first part of Halsbury’s  or the intended amendments.  Once properly construed, the sameness and similarities between the law set out in Halsbury’s are clear.  There are no substantive legal differences at all; transportation will constitute bribery if provided or facilitated with the required corrupt intent. The existing laws and proposed amendments therefore contain the same critical corrupt intention of inducement.

 

  1. It should be noted that in December 2009 Sir Brian Alleyne, SDC was quoted on the Dominican.net as having said

 

“According to Sir Alleyne, “what would be illegal is bribery as defined in section 55 of the House of Assembly (Elections) Act Cap. 2:01. Valuable consideration is consideration that confers a pecuniarily measurable benefit on a person. Paying for an airline ticket to Dominica would fall within the definition. 

If the motive is to induce an elector to vote, that, to my mind, would amount to bribery under the section and would attract criminal sanctions of a hefty fine and imprisonment on both the briber and the bribe.

The briber, if convicted, would also be disqualified from being registered as an elector, or voting, or being elected to parliament, and if elected, he would be disqualified from retaining his seat. The matter is very serious indeed. (Sections 55 and 61).”

 

  1. Significantly, Sir Brian made it clear that the transportation of electors must be accompanied by the corrupt intention or motive, namely “the motive is to induce an elector to vote” in order to cross the threshold of the criminal offence of bribery. This clear exposition of the law in Halsbury’s and by  Sir Brian notwithstanding, Reverend William Watty has, by the  stroke of his nakedly partisan pen in his opinion Corruption – No doubt, ravaged  the definition of the offence of bribery which  has stood the test of some  100 years of more.

 

  1. The intellectual tragedy of Reverend Watty’s opinion lies in complete ignorance of the law. Stripped naked, Reverend Watty’s recently crafted definition of bribery is committed by a person once  makes an offer to transport supporters or electors to Dominica or the polls regardless of the facts, motive or intent. On the other hand, if a request is made for transportation by an elector, there is no bribery, regardless of the facts, motive or intent.

 

  1. Significantly, Watty went on to say  that motive and intention are irrelevant. This is  forensic nonsense, if not legal heresy, fabricated to make his  fake point of corruption.  Test the absurdity of Watty’s position by considering this; if  he is right, and he is not, it means that politicians and political parties  will commit  an offence simply by offering transportation to supporters. It gets worse if you reflect over the years. Watty’s pronouncements would mean in substance and effect  that parties have since 1967 been committing the criminal offence bribery simply and only  by the provision of transportation of supporters or electors  to the polls. If this is truly his position, and I doubt it, it means that throughout all this politicking and mobilization over the last  decades  the good Reverend kept his moral sanctity to himself, and said not a word, until now, in spite of the fact that candidates and parties had advertised free transportation  publicly, on bull horns, and radio etc!

 

  1. I will add this. It is a fact that in Dominica, and the free world,  political parties  mobilize and  bring out the vote on election day in accordance with  a cardinal rule and practice of essential democratic politics. This mobilization has never ever depended on a request by an elector or supporter, until this self-serving dispensation by Reverend Watty.  Should we heed the good Reverend and Lennox Linton,  any provision of transportation, unless requested, will constitute a crime. This is absurd.

 

  1. Back to the amendments. Notwithstanding the substantial similarities with Halsbury’s, the proposed amendments in fact go further than the existing definition of bribery because

 

  • Prior to the proposed amendments, the High Court would have had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of bribery allegedly occurring outside the territorial boundaries of Dominica. The High Court has no extra-territorial jurisdiction. The words “the transportation of electors or the facilitation of the transportation of electors to …. Dominica” suggests that the High Court may, after the amendments,  be able to ascertain an extra-territorial allegation, if the allegation  is alleged to have occurred in the Diaspora, and with the requisite intention;

 

  • The inducement required under the proposed amendments is extended to include inducing a person to vote for a party as well as a candidate. Under the existing law, the inducements can only be in relation to a particular candidate. this will now be extended to include a party

 

  1. The litigation on transportation and bribery in the OECS has been clear,

 

  • In St Kitts and Nevis, allegations of transportation and bribery including the alleged  use of the US Mission  to facilitate transportation to St Kitts were thrown out in the post 2004 election petitions by Justice Baptiste on the ground that  on the pleadings, the allegation did not constitute  bribery;

 

  • In Dominica, allegations of bribery were thrown out by Justice Rawlins on an application to strike in the post 2005 election petitions;

 

  • In Dominica, allegations of transportation and bribery were thrown out in the post 2009 election petitions by Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas held that the allegations constituted no more than “a fishing expedition”;

 

  • In Antigua and Barbuda, allegations of transportation and bribery were thrown out in the post 2009 election petitions by Justice Blenman. This is significant as the jet charter from Cuba was arranged by the Ambassador in Cuba, Bruce Goodwin,  and Prime Minister Spencer.  It was paid for by the State. After the election Goodwin bragged on radio that had he not brought the students to vote from Cuba, the UPP would have lost the 2009 election. Justice Blenman held that this did not constitute the offence of bribery;

 

  • In Canada, a Court held

 

To drive  to the poll a voter who has  already decided how he will vote, or to  persuade him to come to the poll, cannot  considered as equivalent to inducing such a  voter to vote.”

 

  1. It cannot be over-emphasized that the rulings mentioned above were delivered within the context of the existing laws, 1.e, laws without the proposed amendments. In order words, the High Courts have ruled that the transportation of voters and especially supporters, under the existing laws to a particular country to vote, is not and never has been bribery unless done with a specific intention. This is now, as I write, the law of the land. Nothing has or will change with the amendments; a corrupt intention is required, and must still be pleaded and proved by any petitioner. This therefore must  mean that this mantra of “legalizing bribery” is fake news,  misinformation, and utter rubbish.

 

Treating

  1. In Dominica Justice Errol  Thomas in the John Abraham case (the 2009 election) struck out the allegation of treating. He said food, drinks (and I include entertainment) are every day events, and therefore could not constitute an offence of treating unless done with a corrupt intention.

 

  1. What does the proposed amendment to the offence of treating actually say?

 

  1. The proposed section 57 A provides that sections 55 and 56  shall not extend to  any monies paid etc  on account on any lawful expenses“incurred in good faith” at or on the calling of an election. The inclusion of “ in good faith” is important. It does not include a payment in bad faith which includes any possible corrupt intent. Section 57 A (2) concerns what is included in lawful expenses.

 

  1. The important sub section of 57A (2) is (d), which concerns payments made in respect pf public entertainment. By stating “ public entertainment” the Parliament is ensuring  that only payments made in good faith  for “ public entertainment” are excluded, i.e. entertainment to which the public at large are invited  even though the entertainment is sponsored or provided by a political party. In short, “ public entertainment” was never and could not  be a corrupt or illegal practice.

 

  1. The United Workers Party are objecting to these amendments too. These objections are baseless. For a start, the United workers Party has mastered the craft of public entertainment with Etana in St Joseph, and Spice in the Kalinago territory in 2009. More recently, in 2014 KKK and WCK were the UWP’s  bands of choice. The political leader Mr Linton was himself part of the entertain when he came on stage to show his most unbalanced dance moves.  Now he says, when confronted on Q95, that what he did in 2014 was wrong, and he confessed to having committed a crime in 2014. His current position is that there must be no entertainment at all. This stunning reversal of mind will leave funerals with more music and singing than a political campaign; an idea which I am sure will bring great join to Reverend Watty! But the fact is that the amendments do not legalize what was previously considered the criminal offence of treating.

 

The alleged unfair advantage

  1. An elected Member of Parliament, who is an Attorney at Law, criticized the amendments because he alleged it gives “ an unfair advantage to the governing party.” This is disingenuous forgetfulness for the following among other reasons

 

  1. The Act and amendments favour no one and no party

 

  1. In 2000 the UWP was in Government. They lost;

 

  • In 2005 the Leader of the UWP secured some 3 to 6 million  ECD for campaign funding. This assertion made multiple times has never been denied by Mr. Edison C James. [ See for example https://www.dominicavibes.dm/readers-224442/];

 

  1. In 2009 the UWP’s campaign was managed by SCL whose 1.5 million USD was paid for by external forces;

 

  1. In 2014/2015, there were no election petitions following the 2014 general election, absolutely no election petition or allegation of bribery. I should add that the misconceived complaints  in the Magistrate’s Court  make no allegation  of bribery.

 

  1. More importantly, electors in the Diaspora have the right to vote. As a result, political parties have courted them for years, until now. .Now that it appears that UWP and its Leader’s, ability to raise funding has sank, except to pay his legal bills and damages, the UWP and Mr Linton now believe that the practice of providing transportation to supporters to Dominica, and on polling day to the polling stations, is now  a corrupting “evil”.  This change of mind based on a party’s financial fortunes simply cannot be the litmus test of legality,constitutionality or free and fair elections. This tells me that what we have here with these proposed amendments is a fight over nothing fueled by partisanship and misinformation.

 

  Opinions expressed in this commentary are not necessarily those of Dominica News Online or its advertisers. 

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

111 Comments

  1. unmasked
    June 4, 2017

    I wish some Dominicans would see more than just colour. This is a very well researched and put together analysis by Mr. Astaphans. It was not solely written off his head but is based on hard facts and documentation which can be confirmed. Yet still, some criticized this article; but choose to believe baseless and fallacious propaganda.

    You must not always be too quick to cast judgement or oppose everything that the government puts forward because you don’t support them. There is much more respect to an opposition that can acknowledge when a government has made a good call, than one who takes the title of opposition way to literally. An opposition is not only there to criticize the government’s DOs and DON’Ts, but to provide an alternative to what is going on, something which this present opposition has fail terrible to do.

    This reform to me, seems to have a lot of benefits for the opposition. Yet still they refuse to read and understand what the change entitles and what…

    • Papa Dom
      June 5, 2017

      I wish to challenge your assertions that the piece by tony is well researched and that the opposition does not present any alternatives to the proposals of the government. Although not a lawyer, l submit that the topics is researched but not very well but presents misleading arguments,which, to those who fail to inform thrmselves, sounds factual. The cases cited in no way support what tony is saying since the central issues being adjudicated on in those cases are different to the issues being raised here. The dicta that every person on the list is entitled to vote does not override the constitution’s provision that certain classes of persons are not entitled to vote. What this means therefore is that there should be a continuous process of cleaning the voters list and in our case, a process of complete re-registration as is being advocated by the opposition. Then there are the issues of bribery and treating. Again tony’s arsertion that case laws doesn’t support that giving of food…

      • Papa Dom
        June 5, 2017

        Providing travel is illegal, is fanciful, if not blatantly dishonest. Again cited cases being taken out of context and interpreted to suit his purpose. The constitution clearly states that giving of gifts of a material nature is illegal and so providing someone with a ticket which cost hundreds of £’s,€’sor $’s is providing them with a valuable and material thing to induce that person to vote. So before you heap praise on tony and castigate the opposition please go and do your own research. You sound intelligent enough to be able to do that.

    • Noreen C. Edwards
      June 5, 2017

      The benefits you unmasked is talking about is for the Dominica Labour Party not Dominicans.

  2. Jon Jones
    June 4, 2017

    You cite Halsbury’s Law of England to form the basis of your argument but use no precedent cases from that source in support. Instead you rely on cases that I would consider weak in that they are all from within the OECS and subject to the influence of favourable corruption or political bias. The Canada reference is like blowing hot air as you also havent cited a relevant case to support that statement.

    Dude, you must think a lot of words will fool everybody. After reading some of this I wasn’t impressed. Your legal ability will only hold sway in your own favourable backyard.

  3. Skerrit Must Go... Now?
    June 4, 2017

    This QC is a cancer for Dominicans, being able to live in peace and tranquility. By disguise, this fella is trying to be the voice of the people for Gov’t… who has mandated him to do so?

    The people have asked for a simple request but the DLP gov’t refuses to listen. We the people are asking for a White Paper on the proposed electoral amendments in D/ca. We want govt’s authoritative report/guide on these changes, to inform us concisely about this complex issue and to present the DLP govt’s philosophy on the matter.

    What this QC is trying to pass and disguise as an authoritative report/guide to the people is utter garbage… a real nonsense. Why… because it’s not gov’t proof and rather than educate it distorts, fails to help D/cans understand the issue, solve the problem or make a decision.

  4. only time will tell
    June 3, 2017

    Dominican is doing so well and is Antigua you make your happy home i know you laughing at the DOM-IN-CANS that think you love them so much its all about the FOOOOLS moneys you after but you cant do or say as you please in Antigua only in Dominica you all can say and do as please but all this will come to and END

  5. UDOHREADYET
    June 2, 2017

    All UWP good for is disruption and complaint! even when you helping them they want to bite your hand!
    their leadership cannot comprehend that election campaigning is over!!

    If electoral issues and not slanderer were a real concern for them, they would have proposed these very same amendments and laws and have a discourse about it in the Parliament!

    Such is not the case… Campaigning is over buoy!
    Help your constituents, work together with the other parliamentarians, stop being so overly sensitive and taking governmental issues personally!
    Seems you think very low of your own country your country, which is why you constantly disrespect the laws and process… there’s a big difference between what you think and reality!

  6. Truth Be Told
    June 2, 2017

    What is “nothing” to the Lebanese and Syrian millionaires and their offspring living in the Caribbean, is a lot to the sons and daughters of the ex-enslaved people in the Caribbean!

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Why such a comment. What do you achieve from making such comment.Does it make you smarter or enlightened.What is the “nothing” you are talking about that means a lot to the sons and daughters of the ex-enslaved people in the Caribbean!

    • Be Good
      June 4, 2017

      he is a Dominican get a life the the one you supporting don’t have anything you think it’s only blacks are Dominicans

  7. A. E. Williams
    June 2, 2017

    Per Atty. Astaphan’s analysis, the proposed amendment will effectively eliminate any evidence of bribery; rather, any monetary payments ‘shall’ be classified as ‘good faith’, and proof otherwise will remain ever elusive, because the benefactor’s intention is clearly not for a favorable vote, in return! That said, Rev. Dr. Watty’s claim of corruption in the proposed legislation is moot, as it will have been codified. Therefore, parliament’s ability re-classify corruptible acts as ‘good faith’ is the recipe to stamp-out corruption in government!

    • Gary
      June 4, 2017

      Your opening statement regarding SC on the proposed amendment saying it will effectively eliminate evidence of bribery is reckless. First of Laws or amendments proposed by any Government including ours is written by Jurist whose specialty is writing Laws or amendments, it’s a rigorous process involving one or more Jurist giving their opinions or legal briefs. SC did not write or make such amendment, he may recommended that The Government make an amendment. Let’s not fool ourselves such amendment was not written arbitrarily overnight.

      Evidence and facts is pivotal in Law so there can be no such thing as an amendment to automatically eliminate evidence, such thing would defeat the purpose as to what The Law seeks to accomplish, justice, it’s a folly of your imagination.Yes there are procedures in Law pertaining to how and why certain evidence cannot be admitted.

      • Papa Dom
        June 5, 2017

        Hahaha, continue in your ignorance because it is clear that you do not understand and have no desire to understand

  8. Cyril Volney
    June 2, 2017

    Thank you for clarification, Mr Astaphan.

    Beliefs don’t change fact’s. Fact’s, if you are reasonable, change your beliefs. Be mindful that whatever you say, there are people out there with closed minds and fact’s are meaningless to them.

    • Johnnie Boy
      June 2, 2017

      Cyril Volney you came to Dominica and insulted us , shot you ***

    • Papa Dom
      June 2, 2017

      Talking about yourself I see

    • Papa Dom
      June 3, 2017

      People with closed minds like yourself. Tony has not presented any facts, all he has tried to do is confuse the issue by providing erroneous interpretations of case law, as he usually does. No open mind will accept that this has anything to do with making things better. It will certainly make it easier for them the cheat, bribe and treat but not better for Dominica. All bases will be covered, no longer will providing inducement to voters be wrong and if that is not good enough oh, I will classify the expense as election expense. Is you open mind beginning to get the Picture?

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      You are so right. It has come to a situation in our Country where Partisan political beliefs is a replacement for facts, very sad.

  9. 767 I from
    June 2, 2017

    Amend it and my ticket. Doh ask me who I voting for though.

  10. Mal
    June 2, 2017

    Why is any body or media house printing or broadcasting what his man has to say? Call it what you what you want: freedom of speech etc., but my in personal opinion is it is un patriotic.

    I did not read this nonsense- don’t have time or energy- just adding to the disgust by commenting.

    How much did he bill the treasury for this piece of trash?

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      If you did not read this nonsense, why are you responding to it. There is no words to describe your type of thinking.Do you know what personal opinion is – A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof, is it not sad for you to have a conclusion or belief about something and not being able to substantiate with some from of knowledge or proof, is this how you live you life, wow. If you want to know how much he billed the treasury write to The Director of Audit and he will furnish you with such info

  11. Malgraysa
    June 2, 2017

    The lengthy treatise by Mr. Astaphan misses the point. An inducement to come and vote constitutes a contract, in this case not an express contract but an implied one. I would be quote happy to argue before a court that it does and be confident to win my case. A contract does not have to be in writing. It is sufficient to show that there is an agreement that reflects the intentions of the parties to the agreement. Express and implied contracts are equally valid in law. The government’s famed “proviso” in the proposed amendment confirms that clear that any such contract would be illegal.

    • Humble Farmer
      June 2, 2017

      Well said Malgraysa. Under the current law, an “implied contract” to provide a plane ticket in consideration for a vote could theoretically fall within the definition of bribery. This implied contract would not be difficult to prove. The amendment adds additional elements to the definition of bribery. Elements that would be nearly impossible to prove. THE QUESTION IS: Is it an acceptable practice for a political party to provide an expensive gift (like a round trip ticket to Dominica) to voters? If you think that it is ok , then the amendment is a good idea because it clarifies what conduct constitutes bribery. If paying a voter’s air travel expenses is not a good idea, then clarify the law to clearly describe what a political party can do to transport its supporters to the polls.

      • Gary
        June 5, 2017

        Why write such nonsense saying “Under the current law, an “implied contract” to provide a plane ticket in consideration for a vote could theoretically fall within the definition of bribery.” Your use of the words “could theoretically” makes you argument null and void. Again like Malgraysa you are making assumptions. Facilitating someone with transportation to cast their vote providing them with a plane ticket is not consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing, which is to vote. The person who is being facilitated already knows who they are going to vote for, where is the consideration.You have to provide evidence and proof of such thing. Bribery does not occur simple by your interpretation of The law implying it “could theoretically be bribery”, bribery has to be proven with evidence.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      If you did not read this nonsense, why are you responding to it. There is no words to describe your type of thinking.Do you know what personal opinion is – A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof, is it not sad for you to have a conclusion or belief about something and not being able to substantiate with some from of knowledge or proof, is this how you live you life, wow. If you want to know how much he billed the treasury write to The Director of Audit and he will furnish you with such info.

    • Gary
      June 5, 2017

      To facilitate someone with transportation to vote cannot be a contract because there is no consideration to do or not to do a particular thing. The person who is given the transportation his\or her mind was already made up as to who they are going to vote for, all that is being done is assisting the person to carry out their wishes. When you use the word inducement you are making an assumption that the person was induced to take the transportation and this is your problem, such a folly imagination.People do not win cases in court by presenting their assumptions of things, evidence and proof is what’s needed and in such a situation you would have to prove that the person was induced, you as third party cannot say the person who accepted the transportation was induced or they were asked to vote otherwise if given the transportation. Stop being arrogant. Your interpretation of the Law and what the law is are two different things.

  12. Historian
    June 2, 2017

    The very simple questions I pose to Anthony Astaphan are: If the present law is OK, why change it? If Anthony Astaphan and the Labour Party are winning all elections and court cases under the present systems, why do they want to jeopardize their winning legacies?

    No man is against himself.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Do know what the word Amendment means – The act of changing for the better, not an arbitrary change. If the present Law was OK, why there is doubt and debate regarding the transportation of electors or the facilitation of the transportation of electors to the polls, you tell me.The doubt and debate was ongoing before the amendment and the main issue was seen as a potential for bribery or treating.The Government decided to amend The Law so as to clear all doubt and end the debate.

      The amendment made, reads in it’s entirety, the transportation of electors or the facilitation of the transportation of electors to or within Dominica for the purpose of an election does not constitute an offense UNLESS the transportation is provided or facilitated with the INTENTION to corruptly induce an elector to vote for a particular candidate for whom or party for which the elector would not otherwise. Doesn’t that clear all doubt, do we need another amendment to clear perception and assumption.

  13. Peeping Tom
    June 1, 2017

    Now, contrast this piece with the string of emotive sentences that Watty and Linton spew! A whole lot of opinions and illogical statements and nonsense that do nothing to advance the discourse. Zero!!

    Well done, Tony! You do not disappoint. This is why you are my Senior Counsel of the decade. And who does not like it can touffay!

  14. RastarMarn
    June 1, 2017

    Asstaphan garçon you always come and open your mout like you know a ting or two,,,

    Dude there is a saying something like this: “you never know how stupid someone is until they open their mouth”, it is better to leave people confused about how intelligent you are rather than opening your mouth and let them know how stupid you think,,,

    Why do you Fellows always sight some ridiculous predated cause of action when circumstances always change and the evidence and actions are always different in ever cause of action at Court,,,

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: BRIBERY, crim. law. The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior in office, and to incline him to act contrary to his duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity.

    You better take your opines to Levi as he is the only One on Dominica that would be entertained by that…

  15. Shameless
    June 1, 2017

    Tony you can babble all you want, try to fool people all you want but I can tell you and those trying to destroy our democracy that if you all ever pass that BS law then crapaud smoke allu pipe. We will NOT have it so take a que and leave well alone.

    Assertive like Moses’ rod! :twisted:

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Pity your ignorance. Do you know what a precedence in Law
      means. Here is the meaning from Blacks Law Dictionary
      An adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law. A draught of a conveyance, settlement, will, pleading, bill, or other legal instrument, which is considered worthy to serve as a pattern for future instruments of the same nature.The Law is what a judge says it is. So long for your silly statement quote “Why do you Fellows always sight some ridiculous predated cause of action when circumstances always change and the evidence and actions are always different in ever cause of action at Court”

      It’s not only knowing the meaning of bribery. Bribery has to be proven, and to prove bribery evidence and proof is needed, not hearsay, perception or assumption.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Do you know what the word babble means-is a stage in child development and a state in language acquisition during which an infant appears to be experimenting with uttering articulate sounds, but does not yet produce any. Is the commentary above written by SC Astaphan fit the description of someone babbling. When SC tells you about decisions, or cases that serves as a guide or justification, precedents the Courts have established regarding the matter at hand facing our Country, is that babbling. If you follow the career of SC in Dominica and the OECS, does this depicts him of trying to destroy democracy in Dominica. How and why you would arrive at such nonsense, and by the way, what is the foolishness about Assertive like Moses rod! is this how you want our Dominica to be Governed by the rod of a tyrant

  16. Vex
    June 1, 2017

    DNO kindly get another lawyer like Queen Counsel to give another view on this proposed amendments. Tony is the government lawyer and his piece her is clearly the legal defense of the government . Please DNO contact Justic Simon QC or his Lordship Justice Andre in Canada. This will help to educate the public. I still would like to congratulate Mr. Astaphans for putting forward the government position

  17. Tj
    June 1, 2017

    Is this tony A. A registered voter here in DA? Here is he living? His one sided garbage of an analysis continues.

  18. watchman
    June 1, 2017

    SC you are copying and past all that to say what? if the opposition is fighting over nothing well my God why can’t you leave this “Nothing” alone? Keep it out! there is no need to insert the “Nothing” into our Election process.

  19. GROPWELL FUFU IODINE
    June 1, 2017

    How does RS explains unfair advantage in the MINOR KEY in the context of the Historical shocking demise of a over confident and complacent Ambrose Baxter George .

    Yes unfair advantage may well be understood by UWP movement from 3 to 6 seats in k14.
    Unfair advantage is also seen when Team antiDOMINICA recently won local government elections in Canefield and Laplaine in k17.
    Holding unto all the seats won by UWP is at variance with unfair advantage .
    Not being able to raise and or use Party and having deep organizational,management,unity,leadership and image issues must be unfair advantage .
    Lack of financial accountability, transparency and disciplined use campaign resource undermines Party capacity to appeal to electorate is unfair advantage .
    Having an unstable underminer in our midst whose continued presence is damaging OUR party’s image is indeed unfair advantage.
    Not respecting the headship of brother Linton and the importance of Marigot, Salisbury and Wesley is…

  20. freedom fighter
    June 1, 2017

    Tony, Skerrit not suppose to use tax payers money and that include CBI money to transport people from overseas to vote.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Wow, Why are you making such assumptions regarding tax payers money and CBI funds.How can the Skerit tap into such funds to transport overseas people to vote, such assumptions only displays ignorance on your part regarding the operational procedures in Government when it comes to using public funds. Why don’t you write a letter to the Director of Audit and ask if such thing is possible.

  21. Ibo France
    June 1, 2017

    Most of the cases cited by Mr. Astaphan in his babbling article are not pertinent to the proposed electoral amendments. This lengthy explanation is an exercise in futility as it is overly ‘spiked’ with legal jargon. The proposals are strictly intended to greatly enhance the DLP chances of retaining power. This article is fraught with skullduggery and political shenanigans at its worst. It should be considered as indecipherable gibberish for its meaninglessness.

  22. Dante Jones
    June 1, 2017

    Blah blah blah. This issue is simple. It SHOULD BE AN OFFENCE for any candidate or person or entity directly affiliated with the candidate or his political campaign, to provide any form of financial assistance at the time of voting or in order to facilitate voting. Every voter should be responsible for making his way to the polling stations. You know full well that if you pay a person’s passage to get to their voting station it is highly likely that they will vote for you.

    Stop the propaganda. You all think dominicans stupid or something.

  23. June 1, 2017

    tony you are playing a deadly game of divide and rule. when will it end tony ? how will it end. this is a toxic catalyst.

  24. Doc. Love
    June 1, 2017

    I grew up as a catholic, during my days at SMA, I was taught, it is only God that is infallible, being, he is incapable of making a mistake. But as far as Tony is concerned, Skeritt is also infallible. Remember, sometime ago, a minister of government referred to him as Jesus. In approximately eighteen years, since he became a politician, I have never heard Tony told Dominicans, in his opinion, the Skeritt led administration has made a mistake. Regardless to what Skeritt does or said, he is forever right. Therefore, whatever this man writes or whenever he speaks, according to my grandma, it enters one ear and passes through the other.

  25. %
    June 1, 2017

    Normally i dont read this mans garbage,but what you should do,if you love Skerrit is to tell him to leave that thing alone,and for the first time in 20 years,give the people a FAIR ELECTION..Many of us know without mass transportation of imported voters he will easily be CLEAN BOWLED,because he does not command the majority of votes on island.
    SKERRIT MUST GO!
    SKERRIT MUST GO!
    SKERRIT MUST GO NOW!

  26. June 1, 2017

    The opposition is something else eh. Tony they don’t want you to talk, but all you speak is facts!

    Most of them don’t even understand and are so stubborn they won’t take time to read this because they don’t like you and the PM.

    • Papa Dom
      June 1, 2017

      Tan sa last. If anyone doesn’t understand it is you my friend. You don’t understand what Tony is saying because if you did you would realise that what he is saying makes no sense.

    • Just Passing Through
      June 2, 2017

      Thank you, Tony. As always whenever you talk, you educate us.

      • Man bites Dogs
        June 2, 2017

        @ just passing through,
        YOUR comments was well said short and sweet workers party +supporters don’t like the truth because they are all well known liars.

  27. June 1, 2017

    Merci Tony. Some of us appreciate the information, and will take our time to read and understand it.

  28. JOE
    June 1, 2017

    Thanks for the enlightenment Senior Counsel, but the sad thing is those idiots don’t read and even those that read cannot comprehend…. but thanks for all your efforts in making us the ones who do read and understand, see the intention and purpose of the Bill!!!!!

    They do not oppose the bill they oppose Skerrit as PM period so they have develop a hatred for the young man!!!!!

    • Jonathan St jean
      June 1, 2017

      Hey Joe,Patrick John could have justified his amendments to the laws of Dominica but the people were opposed to it and didn’t want it.Patrick was well liked in Dominica at the time,so spin it all you want that it’s about hatred of Skerritt only understand it’s about hatred of the amendments.Those who don’t hear will feel.

      • Peeping Tom
        June 1, 2017

        Which “people?” The loud and violent bunch outside DOWASCO? The one who thinks his word is the law? Matt and Q95? Of which “people” do you speak? Surely you do NOT speak of the majority of Dominicans because the noisy rabble outside DOWASCO do not represent “the people!”

      • JOE
        June 2, 2017

        Jonathan you know the Act the same people ousted PJ for was actually passed and is in effect today as we speak?

        We the majority are not gullible any more time has changed and the faster the leadership of the uwp realize that and accept it the better for them and their chance of winning an election…. i can foresee their would be supporters not voting next election resulting in a bigger victory for DLP!!!!!!

    • %
      June 1, 2017

      Joe stop bursting your blood vessel, because you will not be sent to Martinique. It’s ONLY YOUR VOTE DLP wants, nothing else….The people have already said “””NO TO BRIBERY, NO TO TREATING”””. You do not like it, but you have to take it Joe, POOR PITY!. BUT THATS THE PEOPLE’S POWER!!
      SKERRIT MUST GO!!
      SKERRIT MUST GO!
      SKERRIT MUST GO NOW!!

    • Papa Dom
      June 2, 2017

      You sound like a real mouton Batalie. Can you explain what you learned from this piece of garbage by tony?

  29. June 1, 2017

    Thanks for the little education Astaphan.

  30. Venezuela Sorry
    June 1, 2017

    Tony why dont you just shut up. Are you a member of parliament?

    • June 1, 2017

      So everyone else can talk, and he can’t? Thomas Letang is a member of Parliament? Sakway dotish!

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Boy, he surely is saying something to which the likes of you and your Great Marigot Hope have NO response. Too bad. Go suck on it!

  31. Papa Dom
    June 1, 2017

    Tony the cases cited in no way support your claims and event Contradict and confuse your argument. Cases refer to people voting after polls were supposed to close and whether that would have influence the result. The other concerns whether the removal of names was done properly. So go away with your misleading information

  32. Humble Farmer
    June 1, 2017

    The practical effect of the amendment relating to transportation of electors is to legalize the practice of providing round trip airfare in exchange for a vote for a certain political party. Mr. Astaphan’s reference to Halbury’s is misplaced because “… payment to a voter of his travelling expenses on the condition, express or implied, that he would vote for a particular candidate…” requires much less evidence to prove bribery than the proposed amendment. Of course, anyone getting a free plane ride to Dominica clearly understands that it is “implied” that the plane ticket is conditioned on a vote for a certain party. The amendment would require proof that (1) the ticket was offered with the “intention to corruptly induce” an elector; and (2) the elector would not have voted for the party without the ticket. Thus the charge is impossible to prove. A political party is free to charter a jet and fly in unlimited supporters as long as the free trip did not change their…

    • JOE
      June 1, 2017

      Humble Farmer have it occurred to you that persons who come together to charter a plane are all of the same, i.e. the group of persons who resides in Antigua from Wesley (I know them well) :?: who usually come in to vote for the UWP are well-known supporters of the party…. Do you really believe persons are met randomly and asked to go to Dominica and vote and then told “oh by the way it is the Dominica Labour Party who is sponsoring your trip….”?

      Think again and think logically on this one!!!!!

      • Dante Jones
        June 1, 2017

        It is wrong when both sides do it. By establishing legal permission for this nonsense they bring it down to a competition of who has access to more funds. Obviously the ruling party who is sponsored by the PROC, CBI and who knows who else will have more funds to funnel in MORE people but it doesn’t matter – WRONG IS WRONG. And just as you know who they bring in I can tell you who I know that got tickets from their parl rep to come down and vote and who was refused ticket because their voting constituency was already an established seat.

      • %
        June 1, 2017

        Joe do you know that your corrupted and evil party THE DLP, has not won ONE election fairly since 2000? So you really believe that this must continue for ever? Didn’t you say you are a university graduate jOE? I guess you were attempting to say that you are a UNIVERSITY nincompoop Joe!
        Good Dominicans will put a full stop to this stealing of election…You never thought that it would happen Joe. Go wallow in your corruption and idiocy!
        SKERRIT MUST GO!
        SKERRIT MUST GO!!
        SKERRIT MUST GO NOW!!

    • Spike
      June 1, 2017

      And “have it occurred” to you that if any party was about to spend the vast amounts to fly travelling Dominicans back home for an election, that any of the beneficiaries could cast his secret ballot the other way, defy those he thinks are bribing him, and leave no record that he did so? The only way for a political party to ensure such a project would not be a colossal waste is to ensure it was dealing only with its own supporters — in which case there would be no bribery under old or new law!

  33. Noreen C. Edwards
    June 1, 2017

    Tony Astaphan, with all your legal jargon to fool Dominicans you are merely seeking the demise of Roosevelt Skerret and the Labour Party. You have made millions giving legal representation to Miss Mary Eugenia Charles and now Roosevelt Skerret and the government ministers. Why do you continue to dry up the Dominica treasury and Dominicans? One day, one day.

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Typical UWPwee brainless noisemaking! Address the arguments made here and stop making your blue party look like a pack of you-know-what. Then again, the UWPwee is not known to be adept at sensible debate, just see the type of utterances that give them their orgasms.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      One day, one day, what utter nonsense. Why do you make such foolish statements and accusations, such things can only come from a deceptive mind.

  34. jaded
    June 1, 2017

    Well said, Tony. That stuff that Dr. Watty wrote is appalling for a man of his education. How pitiful it is to see the UWP crying sour grapes because they are perpetual losers. Or maybe the UWP wants to keep the law broad because that will create more wiggle room for them to play with.

  35. My 2 cents
    June 1, 2017

    Why is UWP always fussing about all the things they introduced to politics in Dominica. UWP is the worst thing that ever happen to Dominica. Besides, like every other country in the world it’s every Dominicans right to vote in the country of their birth don’t matter where they live.

    • %
      June 1, 2017

      Are you kidding me?.While i was still a member of the DLP,this thing was started by LABOURITES,particularly in the PaixBouche Constituency..Stop garbling nonsense..Because all these things are to corrupt the electoral process.A win by any illegal means possible, is NOT A WIN…Why cant the DLP win fairly?What are they afraid of?
      SKERRIT MUDT GO!
      SKERRIT MUST GO!
      SKERRIT MUST GO NOW!

  36. Hendricks ismael
    June 1, 2017

    What does the constitution say about job creation . After the British gave us independence what was the plan , and what is the plan now. All our water has been flowing into the caribean sea and Atlantic ocean do we have a plan to put it in bottles and sell it to our neighbors. As a people we have wasted 40 yrs being none productive doing nothing . China have just build their first passengers jet liner , what have we built. All we have is a bunch of people who reacts to every thing politics , drink beer and don’t even own the factory . Learn about Singapore , they got independence after Jamaica , take a look at Singapore progress , take a look at Jamaica , Singapore has one of the best university system in the world , the university of the westindes is like a failed state, how many billionaires did the university created, only Williams construction company out of Barbados that made a few millions building roads. All we do is talk politics that does not create smart people .

  37. Jonathan St jean
    June 1, 2017

    Here he goes again.Tony As-ta-phan you are too bright for your own good and you have forgotten that the government although has the power to create new laws can’t and shouldn’t do so against the wishes of the people it serves.Remember Patrick John experience, or go talk to Charles Angelo Saverin about that experience.Tony the mouthpiece,the USA experienced civil war over legislation,do you want the same for Dominica? Please convey to Skerritt that we don’t care what you say we don’t want this piece of legislation in Dominica and it will not happen even if blood has to be shed Hell with your justification,Tony, it’s bribery and we Patriots are not having it.

    • Gary
      June 4, 2017

      Wow, we Patriots, not everything a man dies for is true.Why all this foolishness about shedding blood.Patriots do not live in another Country like you do, the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about is not a Patriot, you are a Patriot of convenience. Bribery is proven in a Court of Law with evidence and proof, the mere saying that someone has committed bribery is not enough, it has to be proven with evidence.

      Why are you bringing up the Patrick John issue, such issue is irrelevant, it cannot be compared to the present issue, it’s ludicrous to make such comparison. The civil war which took place in America was not over legislation, you will be laughed at for suggesting such thing.

  38. Lol
    June 1, 2017

    Tony you are not a politician brother if you want to open your mouth and talk your rubbish to the public then please pay your money and come run for Roseau north for Danny to beat your badly. Stop trying to keep skerrit and this regime in power. This government was weighed on the balance scale and was found wanting ok so it’s just a matter of time before the inevitable happens.so none of your twisted and forked tongue can stop skerrit and this regime from falling. A matter of fact this crooked and perverse government has fallen. Skerrit will never be the Ultimate One in dominica. All of dominica’s assets will be accounted for when all of you will be thoroughly investigated soon.Skerrit must go we the Patriots will demand that in order for dominica to be democractic again. Finally all them so called Christian will certainly be in the hottest place in hell if you all continue to support this devilish conduct

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Why do you think that someone has to be a politician to speak on issues facing the Country. When SC tells you about decisions, or cases that serves as a guide or justification, precedents the Courts have established regarding the matter at hand facing our Country and you call that rubbish it says a lot about your intelligence and understanding. When Danny speaks in Parliament and make unfounded statements, I wonder what would you call such statements. You are entitled to have an opinion about the Government, opinions are found to be worth less at at sometime. The “we patriots” which you are alluding to is maintained through a network of lies and and deception.

      Why are you to passing judgement on Christians, is this a concept of the “we patriots” Why is it wrong to support the DLP. You have said so many things against the Government, is it right to advocate you burn in hottest place in hell for what you said about the Government. Why such an attitude, peace and love.

  39. REAL!!!!!!
    June 1, 2017

    Astaphan if it is about nothing then why make any changes and force it down Dominicans throats who don’t want the changes proposed.

    Why not focus on Sexual Act to protect our young children in Dominica.

    If seem you get overly excited about the majority of people in Dominica remaining poor without a voice.

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Why make changes? first, UWPwee has been asking for it loud and clear. Have you forgotten? Second, these changes add clarity.

  40. bigger
    June 1, 2017

    Here is one brilliant Dominican like him or hate him he is ACE. I believe some haters read it and don’t understand it whilst others are plain and simple wicked. Thank you Tony for your unending effort to educate the people without you it would be a sad day in the Nature Isle

    Linton said he did it and it was wrong. Now he realizes that he haven’t got the know how to attract finances to his campaign so no other party should have the luxury to entertain. The arrogance of this guy is beyond belief. he believes that he has the authority to do as he pleases. Case in point he said that the police cannot tell them when to start or finish their meeting. well I ask you

    • Dominican
      June 2, 2017

      The only people calling Tony an ace are those who are browbeaten by his “legalese” and afraid to admit that they don’t understand a word of it and conceding the point for fear of appearing stupid. It is no more than a torrent designed to wash you away. Tony is no more, or less than a legal bully and is not always right.

  41. ki sa
    June 1, 2017

    Tony. Plain and simple. Transportation is illegal now because you bribing. Change the law and there will be no bribing [OF THE SAME PEOPLE] unless they vote for the other side.

    NICE FREAKING TRY.

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      You just read the law but you still speak this gibberish. What planet you guys came from nah?? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    • sister
      June 2, 2017

      it’s a shame that DNO doesn’t link the references which Tony has citied.

      However, having said that, in law, a the issues don’t have to be exactly the same – the decision of the courts, if based on the below is true – then whatever the issues of the case, though relevant, doesn’t change the fact the the court concluded, if true, i’ll need to find the cases:

      1) In Quinn Leandro v Dean Jonas the Court of Appeal ruled that a person duly registered has a constitutional right to vote.

      2) In John Abraham v Kelvar Darroux the High court held a person who has resided overseas even for more than 5 years has a right to vote unless objected to and an objection has been successful.

      3) In Parry v Brantley, the Court of Appeal held that no elector who is duly registered can be removed from the register without strict compliance with the statutory regime for hearings and due process.

      then it goes to reason that it is not illegal

      • Papa Dom
        June 2, 2017

        You are wrong there my friend. The interpretation of what was decided is different to what Tony is trying to present. The statement as to eligibility to vote is dicta and not the substantial decision of the case because the issue was whether the names were removed in a proper and unbiased manner. If one was to adopt your reasoning then the constitutional provision would be invalidated which is not possible since the constitution in the supreme law. So as you rightly stated there is a process but that process does not preclude the electoral commission from ordering complete re-registration, as is being advocated by the opposition. Every right thinking person knows well that all the amendments being proposed is just to use Tony’s word protect skerritt’s “legacy of winning elections” it has nothing to do with fairness and equity in the electoral process. The criticism of the judicial system in my mind is a valid one because all Tony does is introduce extraneous arguments into every…

  42. THE DOGS FRIEND
    June 1, 2017

    oh my god. that hurting tony he still on that topic

    • June 2, 2017

      Tony is on a ramp page with the legal Association for not inviting him to the debate coming up and what hurts him more Rev William Watty was invited, I’m pleased that they decided collectively not to invite Tony because he was party of the group who put that amendment forward to our electorial laws so why would he be invited, Tony would use the debate to show case himself and his boss I agree leave him out, let him listen to the debate like all of us , I hope that the debate can be live so we can hear the different opinions.

  43. June 1, 2017

    Uh Hu, very interesting.

  44. Cheche
    June 1, 2017

    Clearly Rev. Watty’s piece struck a powerful chord, to warrant such a legal defense! Tony we have all seen your emails telling the Prime Minister that his legacy is at risk if he enacts electoral reform. Skerrit has said that he intends to reign forever. After 5+ years still no voter ID cards…and yet, we are to naively accept that you are working in the interest of democracy and the DOminican people?!

    It is a shame what the mighty DLP has rebranded itself into: a party that focuses on using deception, intimidation, and bribery to maintain power. With $300 Million in CBI funds, the gov’t could easily improve Dominica’s critical sectors. Instead, they make empty promises, and simply pay-off people to keep their mouths shut and vote. Where does all this money end up, afterward? Surely not in the garbage trucks, medical supplies, and ferries to improve the quality of life in Dominica. It is held up in banks to pay for voters to return home to re-elect them. Disgraceful!

    • XXOO
      June 3, 2017

      So very true

  45. jihan
    June 1, 2017

    Tony wont waste my time reading your garbage,when your day comes you will be asking the poor for forgiveness.Time will tell Tony.

  46. truththe
    June 1, 2017

    If so, fighting over nothing, why bring it to the Parliament ? It means yiou are giving the wrong advise.

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Because that is where laws are debated and amended, not on Q95!

  47. June 1, 2017

    Why can’t Tony shut up? Why is it he is forever taking a politician’s position to come forward to explain things to the public? Tony stay in your place.In the time being your job is a lawyers job; do it and profit as most as possible from the source that you encourage to take people to court in order to fill your pocket. If you were in Lebanon you would not be forever coming forward to enlighten Lebanese because certainly, you would not last long.Let Dominicans solve the issues that they have in their country.

    • KaliBud
      June 1, 2017

      The man is a Dominican and a senior counsel. He certainly knows the laws of the land better than the two of us. If u can refute his interpretations, go ahead, but u don’t.seem to have the capacity to understand his writings. Why don’t u ask Mr Joshua Francis to offer a rebuttal, so then we out there can weigh in on the two sides.

    • P.I.
      June 1, 2017

      Now that u are enlightened, u vex? he’s Dominican just like u and has the right to speak just like anybody. just because u cannot contribute positively, u attack his rights. I challenge to say something positive about the topic. otherwise, U shut up!!!! D… negative soul.

      • June 2, 2017

        You are an idiot and will remain an idiot. Blind bat look for your benefit as best as you can but remember that every rope has an end.

    • June 1, 2017

      Tony will never shut up until Dominicans tune him out completely he was not elected to Government but yet we are paying out all the Island monies for stupid courts things that are not worth the paper it’s written on and we have to understand we have the power to say to his boss Skeritt that we had enough .

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Hmmm! This is the kind of ignorance that the UWPwee leadership promotes. If you guys want rights and democracy and all this sweetness, be advised that even Tony, the venerable Senior Counsel, has these rights too. So, get with the programme. Tony shall speak and Skerrit shall go on for another term.

    • Gary
      June 3, 2017

      Do you know how ludicrous you sound. Why would you write such nonsense, is it desperation, is this what politics have done to your mind that you cannot have proper argument regarding the matter, disgusting.

  48. Jah Knows
    June 1, 2017

    Yeah they found laws to justify Transatlantic and Trans-saharan SLAVERY we still opposed it and fought against it .If this is much ado about nothing then why change it I ask. WHY?

  49. Laplaine Observer
    June 1, 2017

    The intended word was statute

  50. Laplaine Observer
    June 1, 2017

    With all these statuary references and previous court cases, there’s no where in the constitution it says that it is legal to provide transportation to overseas voters who want to come down and vote. So this is all a bunch of rubbish.

    • KaliBud
      June 1, 2017

      The constitution and laws do not say what is legal. They outline what is illegal. Everything else is legal. So if it is.not mentioned, as n the case of transporting voters, then it is legal, the court has no.jurisdiction there.

      • Dante Jones
        June 1, 2017

        So basically you all openly admitting to this crap but going with “well it’s not illegal”. Well how about it being UNETHICAL and UNFAIR. But the ruling party and their cronies are masters of propaganda and it seems they also know how to play chess. Who have eyes to see will see. The rest will be jolted awake once it’s too late

      • sister
        June 2, 2017

        Parliament has to change the laws; not the courts. The courts just decide is the laws are constitutional etc.

        so I agree. The laws set the boundaries. if someone wishes to challenge the laws then the court gives them that opportunity.

    • P.I.
      June 1, 2017

      And there’s nowhere it say that it is illegal

    • Peeping Tom
      June 1, 2017

      Oh dear!!!

      These UWPites have been led astray by a novice who thinks he is an expert in everything.

      • Me
        June 2, 2017

        Yes, yes Tom (…sigh) you confirmm once again, that in the land of the blind one-eye is king.

    • sister
      June 2, 2017

      I get you – but this is not how it is in the real world – this is why we have the courts to settle disputes and what we call any misclarity. The courts are there to provide direction – they do not create they laws. they can influence them and have parliament enact them, but ultimately, they do not create laws.
      So, if it’s not in the Constitution and you want to challenge it – then you bring a Constitutional challenge to the courts and set a legal precedent. Otherwise, there is no basis to say it’s not in the Constitution.

      • Tedashcrew
        June 4, 2017

        There are judgemade laws . Area where the constitution is silence and paliarment have not legislated a judge decisions becomes law . Hence the phrase common law .

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available