Phil Perinchief presents the different sides of the current court dispute over PLP membership rules – and concludes that it all comes down to what is – and what is not – constitutional …
Constitutional or unconstitutional?
That is the question, according to Phil Perinchief.
In an open letter, the former PLP Attorney General got down to legal “nuts and bolts” regarding the current courtroom drama over the PLP Leadership race.
Mr Perinchief presents the case as a clash between General and Special provisions of the PLP’s constitution, and states that the matter may depend on a principal of law in which Special provisions shall prevail over General provisions…
Amendments to party membership rules, passed at a Central Committee meeting on August 24th, could see former supporters of other parties vetted prior to being granted membership, and newer members prevented from immediately becoming delegates who can vote at the Annual General Conference.
The PLP leadership election will be held at the upcoming AGC from October 28th to the 30th.
That amendment is currently restrained by a legal injunction acquired by leadership contender, Curtis Dickinson. His campaign team says the process used to pass that amendment was against the party’s constitution.
Seeking to lay out the legal issues, Phil Perinchief cites that the Party Leader, in this case David Burt, and the Central Committee or Executive Committeee have used a general provision of the constitution, clause 8 of the bye-laws, to argue that they had the constitutional right to pass a motion and take action to protect the constitution of the party – in particular while the Annual General Conference is in recess.
However, he also cites the opposing view that the Special provision on membership, Article 4 of the constitution, is supreme over the bye-laws, and that passing the, quote unquote, “controversial” membership motion substantively impacts the established Article 4… and that amounts to an amendment of the PLP constitution.
Mr Perinchief further cites the opposing argument that such an amendment, according to the constitution, can only be acomplished by delegates at an Annual General Conference or Special Delegates Conference – and only after a 21-day notice to party members.
Phil Perinchief adds that it is noteworthy that the Annual General Conference has been convened for late October, and therefore is no longer ajourned or recessed. Opposers to the motion therefore argue that matters are in the hands of the AGC, to which the Central or Executive Committees are subordinate.
Ultimately, Mr Perinchief says, the membership motion only stands if it is constitutional. If unconstitutional, it is null and void in law or – as he puts more bluntly – dead.
