Douglas welcomes court ruling in favor of PM, St. Jean


Legal Affairs Minister Ian Douglas is welcoming a court ruling which favored Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit and Education Minister Petter St. Jean in the ongoing dual citizenship case.

United Workers Party (UWP) petitioners had filed applications for Prime Minister Skerrit and St. Jean to be called as witnesses in the ongoing court matter but Justice Gertel Thom ruled against it.

Douglas said the applications filed by the petitioners were in poor taste.

“We heard the arguments in court. Like the Senior Counsel said you cannot call somebody to give evidence against themselves and incriminate themselves. There is a basic principle in law which states that he who asserts must prove. The onus is on the petitioners to prove it If you are saying that the prime minister has a French passport, you need come with your evidence to show that which you are saying is true,” she said.

Douglas accused the opposition of being unprepared.

“They are building a reputation for untrustworthiness,” he said.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of Inc. All comments are approved by before they are posted. 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:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • are abusive, profane or offensive
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote 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 excessively long and off-message

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.


  1. tet pool
    January 11, 2012

    Boss ian doh even know what happening around him…lucky the Douglases had the extra dough to keep him in law school.put he doesnt even understand what transpired in that court case!!!

  2. Skye
    September 14, 2011

    Are you telling me there is not a cause for truth in DA? Is politics our have all? There is no regard for the Constitution of the land and we sit by and talk trash about Labor and UWP when the Constitutional is made Null and Void? Why have a Constitution then?
    I don’t give a hoot about political affiliation, I just want people to act with commonsense.

    We donot have to be Low down garden variety filthiness in this situation. Leave the Westminster style of arguing and maypwee behind us for a minute and ponder the real problem here. It is already said we are the least developed, do they also have to say we are the most ignorant? Dominicans ignorance is not bliss it means not knowing. Ask your selves what about this case I don’t know? Do I really know what the Constitution of Dominica says about this very situation. Why have Parliamentarians in Jamaica, SKB, Guyana, Belize, Antigua been brought before the court and in two cases decided to come clean and say yes I naturalized in Puerto Rico and and I did it as a sitting minister. Another admitted “I am married to an American citizen so I did it. What is wrong for the Prime Minister and Mr St Jean. if there is any truth to the accusation, to address the Dominican public on the matter @?Cut the bloody onion, if it stink, let it stink.
    What is going on is a circus and political mileage, while the rest of the world catching hell, we Dominicans act in oblivion. We as Dominicans at home and abroad (those that care, because some have given up )need to make changes within ourselves (from top to bottom, bottom up to top )Let us sound a Clarion call, Labor, UWP and who or whatever will not dictate to we the people. before both consulting and deliberating with us. The foolishness Must stop, the political mileage for everything must stop it is overdue time for Dominicans to put DA first and leave all that bickering behind
    come with the truth or we won’t lend you!ours ears.
    And those persons that can’t give up the politica back and forth, go learn a new skill, go join Toastmasters or something. Dominica I will NEVER give up on you. Tell them how long will they last Colonel Gadaffi lasted forty two (42),Hosni Murbarak is wheeled into court on a hospital gurney , humble yourselves and you will be and history will exalt you at the end. Catholic sing a song that goes, Man is lowly by birth, man is only a Pilgrim on earth. Time will tell. Too busy don’t let the breaking of the dawn come any quicker. Shalom

  3. Anonymous
    September 13, 2011

    I think the State and Court should do away with the convention of referring to “Honourable” Ministers and “Honourable” Judges.

  4. hmm
    September 13, 2011

    Let us not accept the PM as legal and also not accept the UWP as opposition because they dont attend parliament.
    New elections and all problems solved!

  5. public office
    September 13, 2011

    Sorry Ian. You guys and the politician turn judge can fool some people.
    Prime minister and ministers are not private individuals.
    Persons in public office are answerable to the public and are not immune to questioning.
    This is not a private case but the offices of opposition are the ones asking the questions.

  6. doctor love
    September 13, 2011


  7. ENCORE!!
    September 13, 2011

    Ian, explain to me, if you are innocent, what do you mean ‘incriminate themselves’? You people figure because you go a little school you know more than everybody!! If they are innocent, what would they incriminate themselves about? The fact is that, they have something to hide!! They blatantly lied and made false statements! They should be made to testify and tell the court that they knew of their status when they swore otherwise.

    Some of us know a little; your lawyer can advise you not to testify and you may choose not to answer the question, but a judge should never barr a defendant from testifying unless it is a minor.

    Our justice system stinks. This is why our people are so lawless. They listen to idiots like you and they emulate what Mr. Skerrit does; no law no constitution can prevent them from commiting any crime.

  8. Papa Dom
    September 13, 2011

    All you people are like the one on the other news item who claimed to know the law. What the pettioners asked the court to do in totally in line with legal procedure, especially in civil cases. The judge was wrong to prevent skerritt from being called as a witness.
    The constitution empowers the court to hear election petitions in line with the civil procedure rules, the fact that the chief justic did not and has not formulated specific rules to deal with the matter, notwithstanding that he knew more than 5 yrs ago that he had neglected to do so, means that the court is “BOUND” to apply the civil procedure rules.

  9. pure
    September 13, 2011

    if you guys read all these comments , u ALL a bunch of @@$$e$ all of all u WORKERS to the BONE ZOE KAY MORE FEN [email protected]@$$

    • 1979
      September 13, 2011

      REALLY? ADMIN and my one sentence comment was found inappropriate??? remember this: just like the PMs case, material evidence is not always needed to prove what is really going on….carry on admin…and bless you in the almighty name….

  10. Nathaniel Peltier
    September 13, 2011

    “We heard the arguments in court. Like the Senior Counsel said you cannot call somebody to give evidence against themselves and incriminate themselves”.

    While this may be true why should it apply to an innocent person.

    “Douglas accused the opposition of being unprepared.”

    When the Legal Affairs Minister make a statement like this now I am affraid. UNPREPARED. This say a lot to me.

  11. BAD TALK
    September 12, 2011



  12. your oportunity
    September 12, 2011

    Ian did you not get more votes than Skerrit?
    How many candidates did you beat fair and square?
    You are an educated Dominican why are you scared to take up the mantle?
    Go repent show yourself to the priest in Portsmouth…you constituents will forgive you.
    Start a fresh. You are in the post to stop this.
    Take up your responsibility make your mother and your children proud…
    Take over the DLP

  13. bedbugs
    September 12, 2011

    I think its time to drop all charges and lets move on to the next chapter in our lives.

  14. September 12, 2011

    Ian Douglas do not know what justice is all about and of cause he is singing for his supper but dont worry Ian dont have any chance of been elected in Portsmouth again he have let down the people of his village. Why cant we the poeple of D’ca see it’s all about the CONSTITUTION and if these men have violate it in any way

  15. A child of God
    September 12, 2011

    really skerrit dat u doing dominicans,y day doesnt go and think first and den put dere name for election, i thaught u was a dominican but i thought wrong

  16. Jalousie
    September 12, 2011

    SEE what happen in C B? lawlessness. No regard for the law. The Govt. doing the same thing. Disregard the law.
    That is the pattern that is being set.
    The master above is watching. It is just a matter of time.

  17. Miss Truth
    September 12, 2011

    Ian was out of state man! Now he giving his 2cents … Chops stupes ……

  18. Lady
    September 12, 2011

    skerrit must have told Ian to say that. lol

  19. gweeve
    September 12, 2011

    Well, Well, Well, Dominica is rock bottom, not even the Justice System is on our side now, but people want to talk about Unity.

  20. September 12, 2011

    Well, well, well this government never ceases to amaze me but WOE, WOE, WOE ! So you mean if Skerrit and Petter had taken the stand, they would have no choice but to tell the TRUTH , right ?.So why should’t they tell the TRUTH ? You know what : TRUTH crushed to earth will RISE UP AGAIN BECAUSE NO LIE CAN LIVE FOREVER !

  21. %
    September 12, 2011

    Ian what else do we expect from you? If you do not do that Skerrit will kick you off..

  22. jeremy
    September 12, 2011

    If a man facing a charge and enjoys an absolutely clear concience he would in my opinion disclose the passport,

    this case whichever way it concludes, will always beg the qustion did he have a passport or did he not was he enjoying dual citizenship or was he not,

    whilst there appears to be a celebratory feeling amongst the accused camp which was demonstrated by the most surprising display of histrionics where Senior Council Astephan was running along a line of outsreched hands, like some pop star made a circus of the solemnity of the court.

    never underestimate anyone ever that is a big mistake the case is not over yet, who knows what is yet to come

  23. Pedro
    September 12, 2011

    Ian, You swear to be an Honourable Man in order to be a menber of parliament. You must therefore tell the Diminican people that your statement is truly honest.

  24. One Love
    September 12, 2011

    8-O : the problem is the JUDGE – any judge worth his/her salt would want to see for him/herself.
    how can the judge refuse to see the evidence and then decide the case? . . . the judge should ask to see the passports for her own information.

    8-O Is this person married with children ? Any mother could decide this case …

    So when one child accuses the other of stealing sugar does she refuse to check the sugar bowl and ask the accuser to produce the sugar that the other ate?

    If you have to decide whether somebody used a passport THEN CHECK THE PASSPORT DUMMY any customs officer knows that TO HELL WITH CCJ

    • looking in
      September 12, 2011

      Remember sometime ago Skeritt denied having the Police and Judges and others like them in his back pocket?
      See what they did to Weeks?
      Time will tell.

    • September 12, 2011

      @One Love

      Except that the judge is not a mother and the Prime Minister and Mr. St.Jean are not her boys.

      In other words the Judge is not responsible to discipline neither the PM nor Mr. St.Jean, as she would be responsible to discipline one of her two boys, as their mother.

      Also the judge has no grievance against Mr. Skerrit and Mr St.Jean, she does not need to see any evidence against them.

      It is the person or persons who has the grievance against Mr. Skerrit, and Mr St. Jean; and having taken them to court, they are responsible to provide their own proof for their complaints or their grievance–those persons are the leaders of the United Workers Party.

      A person cannot complain against me, and at the same time demand that I tell the person to whom he/she brought the complaints againts me, what the reason is for his complaints.

      If I go along with such demand, I would be tightening the rope that the person who has complained against me, tied around my own neck. I need to defend myself, I cannot do that if I speak aganist me. And no one has the right to make me make speak against me.

      That person who is unhappy with me must provide his/her own evidence along with his complaint for unhappy with me.

      I do know why don’t people understand that?

      • One Love
        September 13, 2011

        8-O the JUDGE has to DETERMINE the truth of the matter and SOLVE THE PROBLEM; the whole judicial system is looking foolish – she is allowing herself to be boxed in and backed up against a wall so her integrity can be violated.

        8-O She is quickly becoming irrelevant in her own court

        8-O it should be a matter of applying WISDOM based on principle : could SOLOMON (bible) have told the plaintiff to prove that she indeed had a baby while refusing to admit the baby in evidence?

        I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CASE … ITS THE “JUDGE” I’M ASSESSING – she is either incompetent or playing hookey;

        any judgement she renders now for or against will be shrill,shallow, without soundness; THE PROBLEM WILL NOT BE SOLVED – there will be more culprits tomorrow

    • just saying
      September 13, 2011

      “how can the judge refuse to see the evidence and then decide the case?” Am not sure which evidence you’re referring to. There was no evidence presented by the applicants for the judge to see. There was a petition before judge to go against the law to ask the respondent to provide evidence to help the applicant possible prove their case against them.

      The applicants new that this would never work. What they hoped for is this type of emotional response coming from their supporters that regardless of the law the respondent should speak up.

      The is prying on the ignorance of some of the people to create a biases in the peception of the law. It is even difficult to comprehend how the president and leadership of the UWP new for years that they themselves had candidates from the inception of their party, contested election knowing that they posses dual citizenship. Hyprocrites.

      • Papa Dom
        September 13, 2011

        Whic law was broken by asking for disclosure? are you one of those feeding from tony’s trough of ignorance? Did O J Simpson testify at the civil hearing? go ask tony what is the true procedure before you come here talking foolishness.

  25. Donald Tusk
    September 12, 2011

    If u seating on a table with skerrit and u turn your back, he will say the same thing about u too, lol lol lol

  26. Donald Tusk
    September 12, 2011

    Watch Ian boy… Mike Douglas turning in his grave.

  27. Good ways
    September 12, 2011

    Ian boy you forgot your country pledge ” After God is your Country Dominica” i see you have a new one after “skerrit is labour party”. Sing on ma bro night time coming you don’t want to be left without supper eh.

  28. LOL
    September 12, 2011

    Ian…this one calls for a repeat of your tape where you said what you said about skerrit hurting u…LOL

  29. caribbean genius
    September 12, 2011

    The privy council in England warned caribbean populace, that the ccj would be influenced by politics and the ruling parties. And that caribbean countries should be careful when dropping the p.c in favor of the ccj.
    Are we seeing that here.. Ruling party in anu won case against labour, p.m gonsalves case was denied retrial, now dlp gonna win another case.

    Makes me wonder if the privy council was right. Lets look and see.

    • Donald Tusk
      September 12, 2011

      The Caribbean leaders want the CCJ, the people must refuse it, those corrupt leaders want the ccj.

  30. D/a Massive
    September 12, 2011

    Well said.

  31. September 12, 2011

    “It has been a constant struggle. I have given so much to this guy and the things he has said about me are so hurtful” “If the person he is talking to about you were to get up for a glass of water he will start talking about them to behind their back”
    “Where is Ian?” “Ian come and sing the party song” “We shall not be moved…….We shal not be moved”.
    What do you expect from the humiliated man on the string? The one Behanzin referred to as a stooge in the family. WHAT A SHAME. Your dad and uncle must be flipped over in their graves.

    • drop dead diva
      September 12, 2011

      this is the highlight of my night………….lol too funny!!

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