Advertisement 288
Advertisement 211
Grahame Bollers

The court has ordered that the respondents find new counsel to replace Grahame Bollers, who is ill. (iWN file photo)

Advertisement 219

A lawyer for one of the respondents in the two election petitions that the opposition filed challenging the results of the December 2015 general elections is asking for a postponement of the hearing of evidence, scheduled to begin on Monday.

High Court judge, Justice Esco Henry, who is presiding over the matter, will hear tomorrow, Friday, the application by Grahame Bollers.

Bollers is lead counsel for Sir Louis Straker and Montgomery Daniel, Members of Parliament for Central Leeward and North Windward.

The New Democratic Party’s candidates in those districts — Ben Exeter and Lauron “Sharer” Baptiste —  are challenging the outcome of the vote in those districts.

Electoral officials say the two constituencies were won by the Unity Labour Party’s candidates to secure eight of the 15 parliamentary seats and a fourth consecutive term in office.

The NDP won the remaining seven seats.

The protracted trial of the petitions was slated to being hearing oral testimonies next Monday through Friday.

On July 12, the court fixed Dec. 3 to 7 for the hearing of oral testimonies.

Justice Henry reportedly told the parties then that it would take something earth-shattering for the court to allow another postponement.

However, this week, Carlos James, a lawyer for the government in the matter, wrote to the court saying that Bollers “has been becoming progressively unwell over the last three to four months, and experiencing symptoms not inconsistent with cardiovascular problems”.

James said that these symptoms include “shortness of breath, dizziness, chest pains, and neck pains”.

In his application, James, who is also a senator for the ULP administration, said that on attending his general practitioner, Dr. Wayne D. Murray, Bollers was told “to cease and desist all work related activity and has been referred for various tests and to cardiac specialists out of the jurisdiction”.

James said Bollers has had complaints of a similar nature previously and is prepared to show such supporting documentation to the court and to the lawyer for the petitioners.

He said this will be done “in confidence if so required, but in interest of privacy would not wish this information to be part of the public record available to the public at large”.

The application said Bollers has considerable experience in election matters, and his junior —  James — “is not sufficiently experienced to conduct the said respondents’ cases without Mr. Bollers’ guidance and supervision and general input especially given the short notice and “the specialised nature of the election petition proceedings “and also in view of the high importance to all parities and to the public at large”.

The application said that the respondents have also said they wish Mr. Bollers to conduct the matter personally, since he has been involved in these proceedings since their inception.

“Mr. Montgomery Daniel and Sir Louis Straker verily believe they will be seriously prejudiced in their respective cases unless represented by Mr. Bollers as the consequences of an adverse ruling will mean they will have to vacate their seats.”

Speaking to iWitness News on Thursday, Stanley “Stalky” John, QC, lead counsel for the petitioners, said his clients have objected to Bollers’ application.

He said that the judge has given further directions so that all parties can be ready for the scheduled hearing next Monday.

“But, in the meantime, lead counsel overseas for one of the respondents, called and spoke with me indicating that since the judge did not hear the application of Mr. Bollers but had put it down to be heard on Monday, whether or not, in order to avoid the inconvenience and the expense, lawyers for both sides could approach the judge and ask her if they can hear it earlier — before the end of this week.”

John said that legal practitioners for both sides signed a letter asking the judge whether the application can be heard on Friday.

The judge met with the lawyers on Thursday (today) and decided that the application would be heard on Friday — tomorrow.

Advertisement 21

Advertisement 128

4 replies on “Court to hear govt application to delay petitions”

  1. The lead lawyers for this case are from Trinidad, not SVG. It seems like both sides want this case delayed until the next election to ensure it is never heard.

  2. To the best of my knowledge there are no cardiologists let alone a heart surgeon in SVG but there are at least two internists (internal medicine specialists) far more knowledgeable about cardiac issues than the general practictioner referred to above.

    So this sounds fishy to me, especially when heart conditions require very prompt diagnosis and treatment to avoid death from a heart attack.

    Mr. Bollers has the financial means and connections to seek such treatment in Trinidad and Barbados at a heart beat (excuse the pun) or in America in two heart beats. The very first test he would be given is an angiogram immediately followed by an angioplasty, if needed, both available in Barbados and Trinidad. In the United States, for example, referral to a cardiologist (many of whom routinely do both procedures) takes only a few days.

    If the angiogram indicates that heart surgery is needed, this would follow very quickly.

    If surgery is not required various blood thinners, blood pressure reducers, etc. can be used to reduce both the symptoms (shortness of breath, chest pains, fatigue, etc.) and the chance of a heart attack.

    Judge Henry had a duty to ask about all these things especially why a man of wealth like Bollers is still languishing in SVG if he is so ill.

    This is unbelievable especially because rest and relaxation will do nothing to reverse or alleviate cardiac artery disease and related ailments.

    1. Once again ben-David you are only partly accurate with your musings. Firstly the initial point of entry into the health care system for most people here and even in the UK is the office of their GP. Secondly an angiogram poses significant risks to the kidneys and is not an initial test. Most patients would get less invasive tests done first including blood tests, EKG, chest x-rays and echocardiogram. But I do agree with most of what you have said including the ability of the lawyer to follow the doctors orders and seek care abroad.

Comments are closed.