Curtis Dickinson’s lawyers argue that the party has not been forthcoming with some of information that the court ordered them to hand over
Yet another day in Supreme Court for the PLP, as Curtis Dickinson’s lawyers argued that the party has not been forthcoming with some of information that the court ordered them to hand over.
The judge also ruled that certain statements from the PLP’s submissions that allege voter fraud must be stricken.
Furthermore, the PLP’s counsel sought to ‘wrap up’ the proceedings – but Mr Dickinson’s lawyers were having none of it.
Mark Pettingill, representing the PLP’s Chairperson and General Secretary, stood up at the beginning of today’s court hearing and cited his client’s desire to “turn down the heat” on this matter.
He added that even if the vote on the membership amendments is ruled unconstitutional, “there will be a Special Delegates Conference… so what are we doing?”
Justice Shade Subair Williams asked if Mr Pettingill was asking for more time. He was granted a few minutes to talk with Delroy Duncan, who is representing Curtis Dickinson and four other plaintiffs.
When he addressed the court a few minuted later, Mr Duncan said the discussion was “singularly unproductive”, asserting that “Mr Dickinson wants this settled more than anyone”.
However, he said Mr Pettingill’s assertion that the PLP wants to hold an SDC is so they can pass the amendments is currently restrained by the court.
That would amount to a retroactive removal of members, he said, which is not in line with the PLP’s constitution as it stands now.
Mr Duncan added that the only way for this matter to conclude is for the court to deliver a judgement.
He then argued that the defendants have not complied with all the court’s rulings by failing to provide certain information.
The existence of a document outlining the PLP’s 2026 membership process came into question. Mr Duncan cited references to the document in the affidavits, but Mr Pettingill said he had been told that there is no specific document outlining the 2026 membership process.
Nevertheless, Justice Subair Williams instructed that any documents connected with the membership process should be submitted.
As for some of the other information that Mr Duncan said was missing, including minutes from certain meetings, Mr Pettingill referenced PLP Chair Dawn Simmons and Secretary General Patricia Basden, who have been named by the plaintiffs as representatives of the PLP.
Mr Pettingill said that the two women, who were present in the court with family and supporters, have done their best to hand over what they can.
Mr Duncan cited sections in the affidavits which speak of efforts to validate memberships, with specific insinuations of “voter fraud and voter manipulation”.
The courtroom only heard one detailed example from the affidavits, in which a named individual was called up for validation, and they responded that a membership form was submitted without their consent.
Mr Duncan argued that such an example is just the validation process working as it should, rather than fraud.
He also argued that some allegations in the affidavits are hearsay.
He said, “the lack of a basis in the affidavits of a ground to suggest … voter manipulation and fraud – it is the most groundless allegation, the most baseless allegation, that I have heard in this court for many a year.”
Mr Duncan also said such allegations are irrelevant to the case.
Mark Pettingill argued that concerns over how people become members of the PLP should be considered as relevant, because the membership process determines who will vote in the PLP’s internal elections.
He said members should be able to show that they are not joing the party simply to select a particular candidate.
Ultimately, it was agreed that the portions of the affidavits implying ‘voter fraud’ which could be considered hearsay must be removed, and the judge amended the court order accordingly.
Mr Pettingill sought to further argue that it should be understood why the PLP makes certain decisions, but Justice Subair Williams stopped him.
The judge said she was not interested in the “politics behind any of this”, and affirmed, “this is a contract case”.
The case will be heard in the Supreme Court on October 1st and 2nd.
