Sovereignty Party Candidate’s Election Dispute to be Heard in High Court After Two-Year Delay

A fringe political party’s candidate will finally have his day in court, two years after filing an urgent appeal against a judge’s general election ruling.

Hours after Barbados TODAY reported on Thursday that Phillip Nathaniel Catlyn, a candidate for the Sovereignty Party in the January 19 2022 poll in the St Thomas constituency, had lodged a constitutional motion against the state, protesting the delay in hearing his appeal, word came that the High Court will hear the lawsuit on September 24.

Catlyn claims electors who were in quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic were disenfranchised.

The motion, filed in the High Court on Thursday by Catlyn’s lawyer, Lalu Hanuman, seeks vindicatory damages among other remedies. Catlyn is also seeking further relief as deemed fit by the court.

He argues that thousands of eligible voters under quarantine were dispossessed of their rights because the Electoral and Boundaries Commission made no provision for them to vote. The Chief Justice and Attorney General are named as defendants.

Catlyn is seeking a declaration that there has been an unreasonable delay in hearing the urgent appeal he lodged on February 2 2022 against a ruling by Justice Cecily Chase. She had thrown out an earlier appeal calling for judicial review of the President’s decision to issue election writs before ensuring quarantined people could vote.

The claimant argues the delay breaches the Constitution of Barbados and a six-month time limit for judges to deliver decisions.

He cites an October 11 2022 application by respondents to strike out his appeal, the hearing of which concluded on April 26, 2023 with the court reserving judgment.

“To date, despite the lapse of well over two years, this urgent appeal is still outstanding. Furthermore, it is over one year since the decision on the respondents’ application has been outstanding,” Catlyn declared last week in his court filings made available to Barbados TODAY.

“This urgent appeal,” he contended, “is of national importance, but instead of it being expedited, it has been left to languish in flagrant breach of Articles 11(c) and 18(8) of the Constitution, and also in breach of the six-month timeline in Article 84(3)(c) of the Constitution, as amended.”

Section 18(8) of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, governing the independence and impartiality of the court, affords citizens the right to a “fair hearing within a reasonable time”. Under Section 84, a judge may be removed from office “only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehaviour”.