UDP Leadership Battle Continues in Court Despite General Election Outcome

Despite the general elections over and done with, the court case of the UDP leadership remained alive as both parties of the Barrow and Panton factions showed up today for the hearing.  It is a case that many thought would be pointless to ventilate, particularly due to the results of the elections.  The matter proceeded today, however, with Panton’s King’s Counsel Attorney, Peter Knox, appearing in person before Justice Dr Tawanda Hondora.  Barrow is doubling down on his quest to have the court pronounce Panton’s October 20, 2024, convention as being in contravention of the UDP’s constitution. His attorney, Dr. Christopher Malcolm, argued that under the UDP constitution, Panton lacked the requisite authority to issue a call for a convention. As such, the entire proceedings of that event were invalid. He further submitted that the power to issue a call is vested in the Chairman and that Panton was not even a member of the UDP at the time the event took place. Outside, Barrow said that seeing the case through is important for democracy because anyone offering themselves up for office must demonstrate that they can follow the rule of law.

Moses “Shyne” Barrow, Former UDP Leader: “I heard the learned Justice Hondora repeatedly question the defendants as to their contradictory positions which is that the rules were not followed in regards to the expulsion, dismissal of Tracy Panton yet when it comes to the rules and the compliance is necessary for the October 20th event that they held they’re saying that they didn’t have to follow the rules once their rights were being infringed up on then they could take it upon themselves to do whatever. So the learned Justice has great difficulty accepting that. Those of us that would want to be Prime Minister of this country one day or to sit in Cabinet or even ti sit in the National Assembly we have to demonstrate to the public that we adhere to the rule of law and that we will be compliant with whatever oath of office it is that we take. It was my hope because I spoke to the party chairman and he had mentioned that he spoke to Hugo and Hugo understands that he has to maintain the interim leadership until another National Convention is called. But what proceeded was Ms.Panton saying “Shyne didn’t need to resign we resigned him October 20.” maintaining that she and her cabal are the Central Executive and the duly elected leaders which I reject, Alberto August rejects, Shari Madina rejects, a majority of us reject so nothing was solved by my resignation and that is why we have to continue with court.”

Meanwhile, Knox counter argued that the convention was, in fact, valid because of the undeniable right to vote that the delegates exercised. He elaborated on his argument and explained that the convention established Panton’s leadership of the party.

Peter Knox (KC), Attorney: “I think the two situations are slightly different. On the expulsion point that we say the constitution is clear, that was our argument, there was no room for any doubt as to what it meant at all. On the point about whether Mrs.Panton was entitled to call the convention our point is simply the constitution doesn’t say one way or the other whether she could or couldn’t therefore she could, nothing prevented her from doing so. So we say the two are not identical cases. That’s how we put the argument. We shall see what the judge has to say about it. We say there no breach. The reason we did that was because they were in breach. They didn’t do what they were supposed to be doing so of course Mrs.Panton was entitled to give effect to the delegates rights the way she did, that was the argument. I think it’s a good or respectable argument. We shall see what the judge has to say about it. I think the point was taken against us that we didn’t involve the Secretary General and that they say is something which will result in they say the convention being invalid. We say no, it’s true we didn’t involve the Secretary General, that makes no difference at all because we did absolutely everything which she was supposed to do we did ourselves in any event. We say if you like all the letters went out it makes no difference whether it was us who sent them our or the secretary general. The fact is they all went out and so everyone knew about the convention, everyone had the relevant documents so what is the matter that we sent the documents out not her ? Now again that’s a matter the judge will have to consider. The other side says no it’s got to go through the Secretary General and if it doesn’t well that’s the end of it. Our basic point is being a delegate Is a very important job. If you are a delegate it must follow that rights given to you by the constitution must be upheld. They are serious rights and that’s because the structure of the constitution is what I said was a bottom up constitution, it’s starts at constituency level and it’s the constituents and in particular the delegates of the constituency who are a fundamental part of the party that is why we say they are given these powerful rights to call for a national convention regardless of what National Party Council might say or regardless of what the Central Executive Committee says or the Chairman. These are absolute rights and that’s why if they were being dishonored it followed that Mrs. Panton was entitled to see to it that they were given effect to. That was the argument. The question then arises how do you construe the constitution in that position which is a position that is not provided for expressly by the constitution.” 

Justice Hondora has reserved his judgment for a date yet to be announced