PLP Respond To Curtis Dickinson’s Statement
The PLP has responded to the statement issued earlier today by Curtis Dickinson, saying that the PLP “agreed to every order Mr Dickinson and the plaintiffs asked for in their claim” and “the plaintiffs are now asking the Court for something new.”
A spokesperson said, “Despite the Party’s multiple attempts to reach a resolution outside of court, Mr. Dickinson remained unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue. Instead, last week, Mr. Dickinson opted to increase his targeted attack on Party Chairperson Dawn Simmons and Secretary General Patricia Basden with penal threats that included seizing their personal property, issuing fines and imprisonment.
“Legal costs could financially cripple our Party”
“Rather than a prolonged court case between members of our own Party, we chose not to argue further. We recognised that the legal costs could financially cripple our Party, wiping out the years of hard work by our many dedicated volunteers. This reality was compounded by Mr. Dickinson determination to go after the Party for his legal costs.
“With this backdrop, the Progressive Labour Party was forced to make a difficult decision. We agreed to every order Mr Dickinson and the plaintiffs asked for in their claim, in their own words. We accepted that the Central Committee was not the right place to decide these motions. We did so in the hope of bringing these proceedings to a close, sparing our members further cost, and letting the Party return to its work. We are saddened that this has not been enough.
“Plaintiffs are now asking the Court for something new”
“The plaintiffs are now asking the Court for something new, which was not part of their original claim. They are asking the Court to declare, in advance, that certain decisions about the Party’s membership can never be made, even by the Party’s delegates voting to amend the Constitution through its own proper process.
“Mr Dickinson’s original claim said the opposite. It expressly stated that nothing in it would prevent the Party from deliberating on these matters or amending its Constitution lawfully. That assurance is what allowed us to agree to the plaintiffs’ claim in full.
“The Party, and its members through their delegates, must still have the right to decide their shared future. That right belongs to every PLP member. It is not ours to give away, and it should not be taken away by a court order sought after the Party had already stepped back. With this action, Mr Dickinson is seeking a political result through the court process, rather than a democratic one through the Party’s delegates.
“The Party will attend Court on Thursday and Friday”
“What is now being asked threatens the PLP’s ability to govern itself. It also means more time in court, more cost to our members, and more uncertainty as our Annual General Conference approaches. The Party will attend Court on Thursday and Friday. Two volunteer officers will again carry that burden on the Party’s behalf.
“We respect the Court, and we will set out our position there, respectfully and fully. We remain hopeful that the Court will recognise that the future of the Party belongs to its members. Our door remains open. We would still rather resolve our differences at our own table.”
