Lawyer Kay Bacchus-Baptiste, right, and Douglas Mendes, SC. (iWN photos)

In court, she might refer to him as “my learned friend”. However, on the political platform, she calls him “The Wizard of Oz”.

That’s the name that opposition senator, lawyer Kay Bacchus-Baptiste has for Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, the lead lawyer for the respondents in the election petition case.

Bacchus-Baptiste, who is also a lawyer in the case, told a rally of her New Democratic Party in Layou, on Saturday, that Mendes is “a very good lawyer” who did “a valiant job”.

“But you have to be the Wizard of Oz to try to win on this evidence we brought into court. Only the wizard could swing that. He did a valiant job, but I tell you, regardless of what happens on the 21st, we have won those cases,” she said.

The NDP has brought two petitions challenging the outcome in North Windward and Central Leeward in the 2015 general elections, which electoral officials say the Unity Labour Party won by an 8-7 margin.

4 replies on “Only Wizard of Oz can win against NDP’s evidence – Kay”

  1. C. ben-David says:

    By terming lawyer Mendes a “wizard” Ms. Bacchus-Baptiste is saying that if the ULP side wins the petitions case it was because Mendes performed magic (obeah) at the trial, an idea that would appeal to those superstitious NDP supporters who claim the two elections in question were magically stolen.

    “Regardless of what happens on the 21st” means that ULP brass realistically expect a loss and are simply priming their base to keep on fighting because the verdict was obtained through Obeah.

    I’m not sure that the Comrade would agree even as he has claimed that if he works Obeah he works it for the Lord, a blasphemous statement if there ever was on.

    We are truly living on a ship of fools.

  2. The petitioners have proven beyond a doubt that the vote conducted in those two constituencies certainly was a travesty, however, the respondents along with the judge who seemed to do all he could for the respondents, can team together and make significant discrepancies seem insignificant merely by saying (more like guessing) that it was not enough to change an outcome. I would not want to be a judge that says it is all right to make a vote taly sheet disappear, as if by magic, never to be seen again. Or saying it is just fine to take the voting box with all the votes in it, home and spend the night with you. These and other “funny business” discrepancies should not be trivialized.

  3. Urlan Alexander says:

    Stewps!! And the biggest fools are the vincentian people who have been suffering for 18 years and only falling for the crumbs in return for hardships..

Comments are closed.