The membership fee was a key component of the defence’s argument in the court this morning, in the legal contest between the Curtis Dickinson campaign and the PLP executive
Questions lingered in the Supreme Court around the determination of who are paying members of the Progressive Labour and who are not.
That membership fee was a key component of the defence’s argument in the court this morning, in the legal contest between the Curtis Dickinson campaign and the PLP executive.
PLP Leadership contender Mr Dickinson took the party executive to court after the Central Committee voted to pass membership amendments.
One of those amendments would have made brand new members ineligible to become delegates who can vote directly during the upcoming leadership election at the delayed Annual Delegates Conference.
Mr Dickinson is on record stating that his campaign has brought in more than 18-hundred new members.
Mark Pettingill cited five bulk membership payments, totalling nearly 46-thousand dollars, coming from Curtis Dickinson’s campaign office.
Mr Pettingill argued that party memberships are personal, and that the language of the payment process is personal.
He referred to Article 7 of the PLP Constitution which states – “upon joining the Party each member shall pay a subscription”… He added that the constitution’s clauses include language that says the Membership Secretary can issue a receipt “to any new member”, and refers to a new member “paying his subscription”.
Therefore, he reasoned that the verification of each person connected to each payment constitutes an essential step that precedes receiving full membership.
Mr Pettingill went on to cite the affidavit of the Membership Secretary – that the large bulk submissions of applications had raised a red flag.
Mr Pettingill, claimed Mr Dickinson’s actions equated to ” branch stacking,” a practice where a party member has gone to various branches to recruit members to increase influence in the party.
He quoted Curtis Dickinson’s affidavit – that his campaign had kept a list of those it had signed up – comprising 1835 new members.
He suggested that Mr Dickinson’s campaign has, quote, “gone about finding the road to the promised land” – the promised land being the PLP leadership.
Speaking to the party having reasonable limits on who can become members, he suggested that counsel for the plaintiff, Delroy Duncan KC, would take the approach that if the Opposition Leader was of age, filled in a form and paid, he should be a member…
It has been repeated by both parties in court that this is a contract case, and Justice Shade Subair Williams interrupted Mr Pettingill to say that her understanding is that, so long as the established membership process is satisfied, a person becomes a member, and it is after becoming a member that they will be subject to any discipline for purportedly acting against the party.
Mr Pettingill argued, “what a nonsense it would create… if you could force your way in [to the party], listen to their meetings…
“Court has to see this for what it is.”
He went on to question if one can really argue that the intention of the PLP in their constitution was all are welcome “even if you are the enemy”,
Justice Subair Williams asked Mr Pettingill if he is inviting the court to say what the party’s rules SHOULD be, rather than what they currently are.
Mr Pettingill said he was not, but added that the matter can’t just be seen in a box of being a strict contract, while ignoring the history and context of the PLP.
Delroy Duncan KC, for the plaintiffs, said that the defence’s points about payment of membership fees had not been raised in the case prior to today, and therefore he requested time to file evidence in response.
Justice Subair Williams adjourned the case until Monday afternoon.
