Decision in referendum case deferred for next year
The much publicized amendments to the constitution will continue to be on hold, at least until next year and that is because judgment in the referendum case number seventeen of 2008 will be delivered until next year. The civil appeal of Alberto Vellos et al versus the Prime Minister and Attorney General got underway in the Appeals Court this morning. The P.M. and A.G. represented by Senior Counsel Lois Young are appealing the July twenty-eighth ruling of Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh which granted a judicial review of the government’s decision to amend the Referendum Act before holding a referendum. Young brought forward five grounds on which she said that a referendum is just consultative and not binding and that the C.J. erred when he found that there was substantive right to a referendum when the claimants filed for judicial review on May ninth. At that time the bill was only a proposal whose future was uncertain as it is the final vote in the House that determined whether the constitution will be amended. Young also asserted that if the court finds that the referendum should be held while the bill is tabled or even after the second reading that it would be an implied amendment to the constitution as it places another step in the legislative process as the Referendum Act does not say when the referendum must be held. Young also felt that provisions 2, 2(a) and 3(1) of the Referendum Act are unconstitutional because it is in contradiction with section sixty-nine of the constitution. When Attorney for Vellos, Lisa Shoman, rose to address the court, she disagreed with that submission saying that portion of the referendum act speaks to the executive while section sixty-nine of the constitution is addressed to the legislative and how they go about making changes to the constitution. Therefore, it would not constitute any change in the general scheme of section sixty-nine or offend against it. If that duty is laid on the Prime Minister, then it would not mean that there is an additional step in the legislative process. Shoman also argued that at the time the claim was filed, a right existed as the issue arose when the matter was introduced into House. The case wrapped up this evening, but the court reserved judgment until its next sitting. When we spoke to Shoman afterwards, she felt good about her clients’ chances at success.
Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Vellos
“Feeling very good, feeling very confident. I believe that the case will turn on whether, in fact the referendum act was valid within the meaning of the constitution, meaning it is not inconsistent. The court below found that it was not inconsistent and I believe that court will also find the same; that it was entirely consistent and in fact that it was an added layer of protection to the citizenry to be able to have a consultation, a consultation which I might point out the prime minister in his own interviews prior to introducing this bill into the house said that he was very interested to see how the public would react to this and to hear their views on the matter. We’re saying if you really want the views of the public on the matter then have a referendum.”
Kendra Griffith
“You do not then take into consideration that the consultations; the public consultations that were held took into considerations the views of the public?”
Lisa Shoman
“They did. However, there was also a referendum act which set out very clearly that when you are going to deal with specific issues, not just any other issue because remember the referendum act had several changes that were proposed. But two changes in particular impacted upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens and the law at the time said that whenever those issues arise the public has a right to be consulted and the prime minister has a duty to call a referendum to take that consultation from the public. So it’s not a matter of whether public consultations were enough, what we are saying is that even though that is good, there was a law in effect which gave the prime minister a statutory duty to consult the public and the public has a right to believe that we are government by the rule of law and the prime minister, like any other citizen out there, has to uphold the law and that this was the law at the time.”
Shoman was accompanied by attorneys Kevin Arthurs and Anthony Sylvestre. The next sitting of the Court of Appeal will be in February or March. Although the constitutional amendments were passed by the House and Senate, the Prime Minister has said that he will not ascent to the Governor General until the court proceedings has been settled.
