Advertisement 87
Advertisement 211
Advertisement 219

The views expressed herein are those of the writer and do not represent the opinions or editorial position of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].  

justiceAccording to Herbert A. (Haz) Samuel in his essay, “The OAS report’s inescapable call: Let the petitions be heard!”, the Organisation of American States (OAS) final report findings on the 2015 general elections in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) “… demonstrate why the NDP’s election petitions should be heard in court”.

This is the first of several non sequiturs — statements or conclusions that do not logically follow the previous arguments or statements –other logical errors, and distortions his letter contains.

First, it is false to claim that the Final OAS Report made the “inescapable call” “Let the petitions be heard!”

Rather it made the inescapable reverse claim, namely that: “OAS Observers did not discern any fraudulent or other activities at the final count ‘which could have materially affected the outcome of the vote’”.

Advertisement 21

Another non sequitur is Mr. Samuel’s claim that,“Reasonable observers would agree, based on the evidence so far presented to the court of public opinion, that these petitions are not based on frivolous grounds.”

What other than “reasonable observers” was the independent and impartial OAS team sent to SVG to monitor the election?

How could anyone assert that “public opinion” in such a politically divided country like SVG is likely to be based on “reasonable observation?”

How can most of us have a “reasonable opinion” on such a set of complex election issues without knowing all the facts and the fine points of the law?

And what use is it to invoke uninformed and biased “public opinion” as proof that the election was stolen — Kangaroo court, anyone? — when only the learned justices of the courts will have the final say?

Another non sequitur is Mr. Samuel’s assertion that if the petitions were based on frivolous grounds, “the government side would already have used that argument in its attempts to have them thrown out.”

Why the government side did not do so, he fails to tell us, a logical fallacy called “begging the question” (also called “circular reasoning”). Equally important, this assertion is based on an ignorance of the law, a sin some would argue Mr. Samuel can be excused of since he is an engineer by training and vocation and hence cannot be expected to be familiar with the difference between procedural and substantive law.

But as an engineer, Mr. Samuel surely knows this difference, at least implicitly, as when an engineering project is rejected on procedural grounds — the structural design or plan was not approved by the authorities or did not have the necessary signatures or stamps — even though it may be more than sound on a substantive basis.

Again, counter to the law, that Mr. Samuel seems to consider the incorrect filing of the election petitions a frivolous trifle — “so-called ‘procedural’ grounds,” is the sneering phrase he uses — may be based on confusing our formal legal system with the lackadaisical way Vincentians, including many lawyers and police officials, go about their business: commencing building houses before a permit is granted; signing legal documents in another person’s name, not with any criminal intent, but simply because the rightful signatory was otherwise occupied; and failing to obtain a proper court warrant when searching someone’s home for illegal drugs.

Yet another erroneous assertion is his claim that, “the government side asked the court to throw out the petitions … even if the petitions themselves may have actual substance,” even though the government made no such request on substantive grounds.

More important, any legal team worth its salt will be delighted to find clear cut procedural errors in defending their client, in this case the government of SVG; and any government keen on winning a legal battle would be well advised to accept the advice of its legal team.

He also makes the extraordinary extra-legal assertion that on May 27 when the petitions are set to be heard, “A rational court, concerned about the public interest, should refuse any … revised procedural application” “to have the petitions thrown out.”

A “rational court” for Mr. Samuel seems to be one that is ruled by the uninformed “public opinion” of a lynch mob of “reasonable observers” – every last one of them NDP supporters — hell bent on a change in government, the law and the judiciary be damned.

Finally, Mr. Samuel confuses the issue of procedural irregularities in filing the petitions with the substantive issue of the election irregularities themselves when he says that:

“Any citizen concerned with freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination should be alarmed by these findings [election irregularities] …. It goes without saying that any Justice worth his or her salt should be convinced, on reading this report, that there is a case to be heard in the court of law. Democracy must be upheld; the law must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The government’s application to throw out the petitions should not succeed.”

What Mr. Samuel asks is that the court conflate the two sets of irregularities in such as way that the substantive issues nullify the procedural ones, an egregious and unprecedented misuse of the law in a free and democratic Western society.

Many will still recall the unsolved murder of Glen Jackson, the Prime Minister’s press secretary. The long and detailed signed confession obtained from a suspect was thrown out at the murder trial by the learned judge on procedural grounds. Using Mr. Samuel’s reasoning, Francis Williams, Mr. Jackson’s alleged lover, should have been found guilty of his murder regardless of whether the police bungled the case or not.

It is both surprising and disappointing that Mr. Samuel, the man who so carefully and skillfully deconstructed the lack of logic, fact, and substance in Dr. Ralph Gonsalves justification for the construction of an international airport at Argyle in his famous 2005 speech, would himself resort to the same kind of empty rhetoric, lack of substance, and faulty logic in his defense of the election petitions, proof once again that in little dog-eat-dog SVG almost no one is a “reasonable observer.

C. ben-David

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].

11 replies on “Let the court, not the mob decide if to hear SVG’s election petitions”

  1. Least of all you David who it appears will hate for the petitions to be heard because if they are it shoots down all your malicious rhetoric about Arnhim Eustace over the months.

    Your position is quite clear you would sooner support Gonsalves and electoral illegalities than admit you are wrong.

    David you are a maggot, you know what maggots do, they eat the flesh of others to live and survive and eventually fly around as something else, only to start the procedure all over again.

    1. C. ben-David says:

      Peter, you are equally illogial to the others I critique when you use as an ad hominem attack (calling me a maggot) instead of carefully debunking my argument with one of your own.

      Your implicit distain of procedural justice does not suit a man who would be justifiably incensed if his vehicle were totalled by a penniless driver whose car was not insured, the said insurance being a mere procedural technicality for the mob-belonging penniless driver.

      As for trashing our hapless leader of the opposition, you well know that this has been overwhelmed by my relentless trashing of Ralph Gonsalves who I sincerely believe had been our worst leader ever.

      Peter, one of many differences between me and you is that you are zero percent for Ralph and 100 percent for Eustace while I am zero percent for Ralph and 10 percent for Eustace.

    2. Hey now! C. ben is no maggot. You may be right that he wants to be right, more than admit that Eustace is the better man, but C. ben has otherwise made tremendous contributions to my understanding of SVG and its problems.

      1. C. ben-David says:

        Be careful praising me, Lostpet, because Peter Binose will quickly label us the same person, just another of his ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with him or ask him to back up his claims with verifiable evidence.

  2. Jeannine James says:

    The “mob” of which you speak has every right to have a say. Since when will the “mob” preclude the court? Or is it that you too recognize that there is hardly any difference between the “mob” and the Court?

    This whole thing is about the “mob” (as you so charmingly put it). Could it be that you favour a more exclusive select “mob” of ” made men” than you do the “mob” of your disdain?

    1. Another name for “the mob” are “disenfranchised voters”. Seems that today governments can cheat on elections and we are supposed to suck-it-up. What then is the point of voting?

    2. C. ben-David says:

      1. People have a right to talk, no a duty to talk, even when, no especially when, that talk is fart. It is called free speech.

      2. There are fundamental differences between the mob — the ignorant masses if you want another term — and the court: in a democratic society, the people has given the court the right to make legal judgments on their behalf; the court has the knowledge, training, and experience to do so; and there is a self regulating procedure when courts make poor decisions called the appeal process.

      3. In a representational democratic society like ours, the people — the mob — can change the way they are ruled, including changing their rulers or changing the law via their elected representatives or even doing away with certain legal procedures again by changing the law. But at any given point in time in a democratic society the extant system must be obeyed and respected regardless of whether individual disaffected factions (in this case NDP supporters) feel otherwise.

    3. C. ben-David says:

      Jeannine, you ignored my central point: the importance of both procedural law and substantive law, a bifurcation going back to ancient Roman times where our British legal system originated.

      If we accept Mr. Samuel’s contention that justice must be seen to be done, we must also accept that established legal procedures must be strictly followed. If the police come to search your home, they must have a proper warrant stating the reason for the search. If they find drugs but the warrant was procedurally flawed, you should either not be charged or found not guilty at trial.

      My point is that we Vincentians love proper procedures when it suits our personal interests and hate tem when they don’t. The NDP surely regrets that they did not follow the proper procedures in filing their petitions — part of a pattern of incompetence the party is well known for — but hate that they may hang out to dry as a result.

    4. Yes, those wanting the election results to stand are just another mob, other than the NDP mob. The writer neglects to point out that the Green party are also a part of the “mob”. In his piece he says only NDP. Hey, what created the mob in the first place? Obviously independent observers have stated not only bias, but also a failure to conduct the election “by the rules”….Yeah, let the courts decide. That would be great, but let us see if even the courts are going to go by the election laws….any more than those that conducted the election.
      Odd, we citizens have to obey the laws, but those conducting the election do not.

  3. It is uncomfortable that C. ben-David would seem to be more in support of the Gonsalves gang rather than the opposition. Much of the courts have been, over time, been filled with Gonsalves supporters. Letting the courts decide means letting Gonsalves decide.

    1. C. ben-David says:

      1. I am in support of the law, and only the law.

      2. Decisions made in lower courts can be appealed to higher courts. Are you also saying that our final court of appeal, the law lords of the Privy Council in Great Britain, is a corrupt body filled with “Gonsalves supporters?”

      3. If the courts shouldn’t decide, what is the alternative? A national referendum? A lottery? A revolution?

Comments closed.