by Washington Archibald - November 17th 2012

Premier Joseph Parry of Nevis is playing with fire. He is playing with fire in Nevis and if the fire gets out of control, he is likely to get burned and the whole of the beautiful island of Nevis is likely to be ablaze.

Some months ago, Mr. Parry called an Election in which the two parties of Nevis, the CCM and his NRP contested.

Elections in these two islands are supposed to be free and fair, but by no measure could the election in Nevis be considered to have reached that required standard. Long before the Election there was evidence of wrong doing on the part of Mr. Parry's local government, aided by the Supervisor of Elections, Leroy Benjamin, an ex-pastor-turned-political activist.

The wrong doing consisted of Mr. Parry's attempt to pad the Nevis Voters’List with names from all over St. Kitts, and to remove from the Nevis Voters’ List the names of persons who the NRP activists considered to have been there illegally.

The removal of names became an issue with the CCM on the grounds that they were removed without proper procedure, but although the Court and the Electoral Commission ruled that they were improperly removed and ordered that they be reinstated, the Supervisor Elections went ahead with the Election without any compliance with either the Electoral Commission or the High Court Judge.

The election resulted in a narrow win by Mr. Hensley Daniel over his rival Mr. Mark Brantley. Predictably, Mr. Brantley challenged the results and won judgment at the High Court. Mr. Parry exercised his right to appeal and lost, extracting from the Appeals Court an even more damning judgment than that of the lower Court.

This is when Joseph Parry began to play with fire. He decided to defy the ruling of the Court and to circumvent that ruling by announcing an island wide election.

There are differences of opinion as to the propriety of calling an island wide election to deal with the problem of misfeasance which the Court had found in way the earlier Election was conducted in one constituency. Some supporters of Mr. Parry hold on to the opinion that the Constitution gives him the right to call an Election anytime he wants.

But with regard to this contention, there is the matter of expediency. The writer of the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, once remarked that an act may be lawful but not expedient, meaning that although an act may legally be right, if it is used abusively, it might be found to be inexpedient. 

That is the argument by those who object to the calling of a fresh election. Apart from the wanton waste of public funds that such a move represents, it is clear that Mr. Parry has resorted to this tactic as a way to dare the very Court to which he took his case. His message to the Court is similar to that of the ole-time street character who bared her posterior region for her enemy to kiss.

While the street character might have escaped punishment for her lewdness, Mr. Parry should not expect to get away with his daring adventure. His circumvention of the Appeals Court is bound to have repercussions, not only for him, but for the island of Nevis.
The message that he has sent to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal is:
" You can say what you want; I will do what I want. This land is mine. I am the boss. You can find me malfeasant all you want. I am my own boss. You can't tell me what to do. You order that there should be-election? Well to Hell with you, you can't tell me what to do.
I will do it my way. You want be-election? Why you don't come and hold it if you think you bad?"

Mr. Parry is playing with fire. He is using his political office to defy the ruling of the highest Court of Law in the sub-region. He is trying to debunk an important judgment, and to sabotage the entire judicial system. It is not as if the lower Court had ruled for him, and the higher Court squashed that judgment. That would be bad enough. Mr. Parry has launched an assault against the Court at both its levels, and has flung defiance at the two levels of the Eastern Caribbean Judiciary.

What should the Judiciary do now? They have spent a lot of time deliberating the case. They have made the best ruling their legal minds could produce. They were unanimous in their findings. And must all that effort, all that wisdom go to waste because Mr. Parry obviously does not agree with it; because the ruling is likely to affect him personally, to overturn his misfeasance and cause him to leave office?

So what? According to his present friend and counterpart, the Prime Minister of St. Kitts? What if he had to leave office? The office of Premier is not his personal domain. He came to that office because the person who held it lost it. That's what politics is about, a time to win, ,and a time to lose . What makes Mr. Parry think that he should not lose, that the wishes of the voters should not be honored? Should the personal desires of Mr. Parry and his friends be allowed to compromise the Rule of Law?

The Rule of Law is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society. It equalizes all citizens from the highest to the least, by requiring that all obey the law regardless of their power, influence, or even ignorance. The Court exists to monitor its working to ensure that matters which come before it are carefully considered at all levels of jurisprudence and the wisest rulings are made in the settlements of disputes. 

. 
The Judiciary is independent because it must be free and unfettered in performing its work of handing down even the most unpalatable rulings. Naturally, the Court expects its rulings to be obeyed, because if they are not obeyed and Court rulings are flouted, the community will descend into anarchy and chaos.Any high-up politician who presumes to use his lofty position to challenge the ruling of the Court of Law is doing nothing less than playing with fire. He might even be found in contempt, with his “smart” way of thumbing his nose at the Court. He might also provoke the Court to assert its independence by refusing to hear any more such cases

Premier Parry must be warned that his idea of trying to nullify the ruling of the Court of law by abusing the provisions of the Constitution is even greater misfeasance than the Appeals Court discovered.

The issue which faces Mr. Parry is not about Mark Brantley or Vance Amory. It is also not about Hensley Daniel although he would try to mislead us into thinking so. What is really at stake is not about the political fortunes or misfortunes of individuals, but the future of Nevis. 

Mr. Parry is threatening to set a very unwholesome precedent that would encourage other politicians to ignore the rulings of the Court to correct an electoral malpractice by simply calling a premature election.Mr. Parry seems about to lead an assault on the Rule of Law. He is trying to render the Judiciary impotent in matters of Election. 

Mr. Parry is playing with fire. Mr. Parry must understand that fire is very devastating consequences. It takes a spark to light it but the conflagration reaches far and wide. He might think that he is invincible and can do as he likes with the island without consequences.
He might be dead wrong in his calculations.

 If Mr. Parry is as smart as he makes himself out to be by his November masquerading, he should try to learn from the Arab Spring. The years of oppression and dictatorship did not end by any long drawn out planning by a group of battle ready warriors. It started with a humble unknown street vendor who could take no more, and vented his frustration on himself by dousing his body with oil and lighting himself a fire.

 His final sacrifice set the entire country ablaze and resulted in a spontaneous reaction that brought down a string of governments in the Middle East.                         
If Mr. Parry thinks that pushing the button to the limit will demonstrate what a strongman he is, he had better revise his thinking. His bombast might well backfire and some simple unknown Nevisian might blow wind on the fire. Mr Parry has lived in Nevis all his life. He knows the nature of the independent and proud Nevis people. If he does not expect them to repel the culture of lawlessness that he is trying to promote in Nevis, he might be tragically mistaken.

Mr. Parry is old enough to understand that playing with fire is a dangerous game. As is the case with sharp-edged tools, it is not a game for children and fools. 

DISCLAIMER  :   This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNList.com. SKNList.com does not  correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNList.com, its sponsors or advertisers.

Copyright © 1994-2014 SKNList.com      All Rights Reserved    Cayon, St.Kitts-Nevis        Terms of use