PLP Matter Back In Court Again Today
The legal matter pertaining to the PLP Leadership election returned to court again today [Sept 23], the latest step in the legal case brought by PLP leadership candidate Curtis Dickinson, with the court apparently attaching a penal notice to its latest order.
Prior Court Rulings
The court has already issued two written rulings as it pertains to this case you can read the first one here [PDF] and the second one here [PDF].
Dickinson Campaign Statement
In a statement following the hearing, the Dickinson campaign said, “The Curtis L. Dickinson Campaign returned to the Supreme Court today as part of its continuing effort to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders and the Constitution of the Progressive Labour Party.
“Following several court appearances and previous orders concerning this matter, and as a result of continued breaches of the Court’s orders, the Court today took the significant step of attaching a penal notice to its order. A penal notice places those bound by the order on clear notice that failure to comply may result in contempt of court proceedings and serious consequences can follow.
“This latest development follows continuing concerns raised before the Court regarding breaches of its orders. These include the calling of a Special Delegates Conference following the September 4 Order, the initial failure to provide full membership lists, and use of a membership process that is not contained in the Constitution, and, most recently, concerns surrounding a second incomplete membership list, with removal of 373 members from the confirmed list by way of a verification process that is not contained in Constitution of the Progressive Labour Party.
“Where orders of the Supreme Court have been made, they must be respected. As the Acting Chief Justice stated in the September 21 ruling, compliance with the Court’s orders is mandatory and no person or entity is above the law.
“Of particular concern is information arising from the membership records produced during these proceedings. A comparison of the lists provided shows that 373 initially confirmed members of the Progressive Labour Party no longer appear on the subsequent list produced by the Party.
“The Campaign needs to know what happened to those 373 members. It is not clear whether those individuals themselves are aware that they appeared on one list and subsequently did not appear on another. The Campaign also remains concerned that there are many more documented individuals who do not appear on the membership list at all.
“The Campaign has maintained that transparency, adherence to the Party’s Constitution, and compliance with the Court’s orders matter. Our Campaign believes in protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring that every member is treated in accordance with the same rules.”
Party Leader David Burt’s Message
In a message issued to PLP members, which is now circulating, the current PLP Leader David Burt said, “I want to update you directly on today’s Court hearing and on how we got here. Because the matter is before the Court, there are things I cannot say. What I can say is set out below.
“On 24 August, the Central Committee, the body our Constitution charges with governing the Party between conferences, passed two resolutions concerning new membership applications. Their purpose was simple: to make sure that the people who decide the Party’s future are people who have joined it in accordance with its Constitution. Confirming that an application is genuine, complete and paid for is the ordinary work of any membership organisation. It is what the Membership Process approved by the Central Committee in July requires, and it is what the Party has been doing, openly, since the summer.
“On 4 September, MP Curtis Dickinson and four other plaintiffs went to the Supreme Court and, without notice to the Party, obtained an injunction against the Party’s Chairperson and Secretary General in respect of those resolutions. The Court will hear the case on 1 and 2 October and will decide whether the Central Committee had the power to do what it did. The Party will make its case there, and it will respect the Court’s decision.
“Since the original injunction, the Party has made its best efforts to do what the Court has asked of it. It has produced its records, sworn its affidavits, and worked long hours to comply with every direction the Court has given. The plaintiffs, for their part, have returned to Court twice more, on 17 September and again today, each time seeking further orders.
“Today’s hearing concerned an allegation that members have been removed from the Party’s records. The Party’s position is clear: no member has been struck off the membership roll in the preparation of these lists. We reject the allegation that differences between the lists show that members have been removed in breach of the Court’s order. The Party’s lawyers will address these allegations and explain the relevant records in Court. The Court has given further directions, which the Party and its lawyers are reviewing. The Party will continue to respect the Court’s process, as it has throughout.
“These questions about the records could have been clarified through direct discussion. We belong to the same Party and should be able to speak to one another, ask questions and check the facts before drawing conclusions and filing aggressive legal orders against our hard-working volunteers. There was a caucus meeting last night, and none of these concerns were raised by MP Dickinson, who was in attendance.
“The latest application includes a request for a Penal Notice in the proceedings involving our Chair and our Secretary General. In court today, counsel for the plaintiff said he didn’t feel the penal notice was necessary, but it was included at the insistence of his client. Such a notice warns that disobeying a Court order may result in penalties, including imprisonment, fines or the seizure of their assets. I am deeply concerned about the pressure this places on two women who volunteer their time serving our Party. The application also asked that the Party be made to pay the plaintiffs’ legal costs on the highest basis the law allows.
“I have seen the hours being put into gathering documents, checking applications and preparing records. Our Chair, our Secretary General and those assisting them are doing this alongside their other responsibilities. It pains me to see colleagues carrying this burden, and I ask you to reach out and offer them your support.
“Every member of this Party has ways to raise concerns within it. A member can go to their Branch. A member can bring a matter to the Central Committee. The Constitution provides grievance and appeal procedures, and the Party’s officers have said throughout that the door is open. For sixty-three years, the PLP has settled its differences, and it has had many, through those channels, in rooms full of its own members, by the votes of its own members.
“The plaintiffs were free to bring their concerns to any of those bodies and to put their case to the members whose Party this is. They chose instead to go to the Supreme Court, without notice, and they have gone back twice since, and refused to meet without preconditions and threats from their lawyers. Every dollar the Party spends defending these proceedings is a dollar of members’ dues and donations that is not spent on our branches, our organising or the next election.
“I have called for dialogue before, and I am making that call again. Nobody has to abandon their position to sit down and talk. We can address questions about the records, discuss our disagreements and seek an agreement through the Party’s own processes, with any settlement properly brought before the Court. The Party’s lawyers will continue to address the proceedings. We remain willing to come to the table so that our time and resources can be redirected towards the Party’s mission, rather than further Court proceedings over allegations of membership removals that the Party maintains are factually incorrect.
“In the meantime, please do not be drawn into arguments about this case on social media or in the press. The Party will not litigate in public, and I ask you not to either. If you have a question, bring it to your Branch or to Party Headquarters, where it will be answered.
“I know the toll this is taking collectively on all of us. I can only continue to pray that reason will prevail.”
What Happens Next?
The actual trial about this matter is scheduled to take place on October 1st and 2nd, and as it stands now the conference where the leadership election takes place has been delayed with the party citing the ongoing Court matter.
