Supreme Court 2 was packed this morning as the latest developments unfolded in the row over PLP membership rules.
Extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate those keen to see how the case, brought against the PLP executive by leadership contender Curtis Dickinson and others, plays out.
Party Chair Dawn Simmons and General Secretary Patricia Basden are named as defendants on behalf of the party.
Among family, friends, supporters and observers were Deputy Premier Zane De Silva, PLP MP Wayne Furbert and PLP senator Lindsay Simmons.
Premier David Burt also came into court temporarily, in support of the defendants.
Curtis Dickinson was not present in court.
Following a near hour-long delay due to problems with the court recording software, Delroy Duncan began to lay out the case for the plaintiffs …
He acknowledged that the PLP has conceded to matters raised in their original summons – that amendments to the PLP membership process cannot be passed by the Central Committee under the current rules.
However, he added that they don’t want members to be stripped of rights they have under the PLP constitution – as it stands today – in a subsequent amendment … and it has been implied that the PLP will seek to hold a Special Delegates Conference to vote and potentially pass amendments which would stop brand new members from becoming delegates and voting in the leadership election at the PLP’s Annual Delegates Conference.
That could potentially reduce Curtis Dickinson’s chances in the leadership election, since he has apparently brought in more than 1,800 new members – a surge in applications which prompted the call for amendments in the first place.
One of the central arguments is whether the PLP’s constitution, at the time that a member joined the party, is effectively a contract … Mr Duncan cited arguments from another case: “The rules that govern an association are a contract,” he said.
Ultimately, if it is a contract, it should be subject to contract laws, and verification of membership should be what it was understood to be at the time of the membership application.
Mr Duncan adds that the proviso they are seeking in conclusion to the case is that any attempt to retrospectively impact a party member’s accrued rights must come back before the court.
The case continues.
