Lloyd Noel is a former Attorney General of Grenada, prominent attorney at law and political commentator

Knowing that writer personally for many years, and having shared some unforgettable experiences with him in very trying circumstances, I wish he was present in the No. 2 High Court last week Friday, to have listened to the “Cabinet Special Legal Advisor,” in the hearing of the case involving the Attorney General and Mr Peter David, in the matter touching and concerning Peter’s qualification to sit in Parliament.

I feel almost certain, that writer would definitely have revised or re-phrased his statements quoted above, in light of the undoubted arrogance displayed -- but very clearly without the ability the writer had claimed.

Readers would recall that, since about October/November last year, Mr Wildman was the Government’s spokesman on the issue of Peter David’s qualification to have contested the seat in Parliament for the Town of St George’s.

His position was that, although the Constitution of Grenada (in Section 30) states or lays down very clearly, that as far as citizenship is concerned, to qualify to be nominated one has to be a Commonwealth citizen who has resided in Grenada for twelve months before the date of his/her nomination, or domiciled in Grenada and resident here on the date of his/her nomination -- Peter David, as a Canadian as well as a Grenadian citizen, was not qualified because he owes allegiances to a foreign state or power, viz. Canada; as per Section 31 (1) (a).

That position was maintained, despite the fact that in the Extradition Act No. 22 of 1998, passed in Parliament by this very NNP Government, that Act laid down that Canada is a Commonwealth country and it is NOT a foreign state (Section 2 (1) on Interpretation).

On the 16th January 2006, an ordinary Writ or “Fixed Date Claim Form” was filed on behalf of the Attorney General, and the same was signed by the Crown Counsel in the Attorney General’s department.

The Attorney General was the Claimant and three Respondents (or Defendants) were listed as Peter David, Victor Ashby as Supervisor of Elections, and Brenda Hood as the losing candidate against Peter David in the November 2003 General Elections.

Only Peter David entered appearance and was duly represented by Counsel; no one appeared for or on behalf of Victor Ashby, nor Senator Brenda Hood, and Hugh Wildman appeared for the Attorney General with the Crown Counsel.

As soon as the Claim was served on Peter, his lawyers (Dr Alexis, Ruggles Ferguson, Anselm Clouden and Lloyd Noel) filed an Application in the Court to have the Claim struck out, because based on that Claim the Court had no jurisdiction (authority) to hear and determine the case, which simply said that “Peter David was in Breach of Section 31 (1) (a) of the Constitution.”

The case for Peter David was based on the very Constitution, which lays down that any interested person, including the Attorney General, who is claiming that someone elected to sit in Parliament was not qualified to be nominated and so elected because, for example, he was a citizen of a foreign state or power - that interested person could apply to the High Court to challenge the validity of that MP’s election.

The same Constitution (in Section 37) further lays down that Parliament should pass legislation to say, or regulate, how and in what manner and time such application to the High Court can be made. Parliament, in the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA) 1993, passed such legislation in Sections 97 to 100, and named the procedure an “Election Petition,” with a variety of rules, limitations and conditions attached thereto.

Needless to say, Mr Wildman did not use that procedure, for the very simple and unavoidable reason that the time for so doing had passed since 21 or 28 days after the November 27, 2003, General Elections.

Not to mention, of course, the other insurmountable hurdle that Peter David is an admittedly Canadian Commonwealth citizen -- as the Constitution provides.

The first question must therefore beg itself -- why did he advise such a course of action? In addition to the obvious wanton waste of public funds in the whole exercise -- I wish the Personally Speaking writer was present, to hear Mr Wildman’s arrogance to the Judge, Mr Justice Kenneth Benjamin.

In a nutshell, Mr Wildman submitted to the Judge, that the law made by Parliament in 1993, (the RPA) -- that law was wrong, because it should not have been made pursuant to Section 37 as the Constitution laid down, but under Section 32 of the said Constitution, although that latter Section has nothing to do with MP’s qualification.

And when the Judge, seemingly in utter disbelief as to what was being submitted by Mr Wildman, asked him whether he (the Judge) should ignore the reference to Section 37 in the RPA, and no doubt replace it with Section 32, Mr. Wildman replied that he should.

I would not like to repeat some of the comments made by members of the public present in the Court, but suffice it for me to say that the performances of that high-powered legal advisor should definitely be revisited by the Prime Minister -- as the Personally Speaking writer, who clearly has ready access to the Prime Minister’s attention, has so frankly advised.

I do not know for sure why Mr Wildman, who has no claim to any level of Constitutional expertise, was alone in Court representing the Attorney General -- the Crown Counsel was a note-taker. Because in much less heavier and important matters, he always had a Senior Counsel leading him.

It could be that he felt capable on his own of dealing with the four of us mentioned above -- even though we have a Constitutional expert in Dr Alexis in the team.

But as time and his busy case-load permitted him, we also had Dr Lloyd Barnet from Jamaica, of worldwide constitutional renown, leading the team.

So that there was a Guyanese judge, hearing a case about Grenada’s Constitution, being argued by two Jamaican Attorneys, in a Grenadian Court. But that was all those two had in common -- their origin.

Everything else pertaining to their manner, and demeanor, and scholarship, and presentation, and expertise on regional and international constitutions -- as well as the humility versus the groundless arrogance being displayed -- was like a professor admonishing a primary schoolboy.

As for the over-tolerant judge, who had to listen to the same statement repeated by Mr Wildman dozens of times -- even though he was saying nothing of any substance -- it must have been an ordeal for his patience.

However, it all came to an end after many hours -- when the Judge said that judgment was reserved to a date to be advised.

Then later that evening in the GBN News, I heard Mr Wildman saying that he had presented a strong case on behalf of the Attorney General -- to prove that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case, that Peter David was not validly elected to hold the seat for the Town of St George’s in the Lower House of Parliament.

I supposed stranger things have happened in these never-dull-Isles, so we have to wait on the judgment.

We now have the case by Hon. Tillman Thomas, against the one-man Commissioner in the “Brief Case” Inquiry, awaiting a decision; as well as the case by Mr Hugh Wildman, against the (JLSC) Judicial and Legal Services Commission for refusing to recommend him as Attorney General; and this latest matter, all involving the Government in some way or another and all awaiting decisions from our High Court.

On the more strictly political front, Parliament dealt with the revised (NRL) National Reconstruction Levy last week, to reduce it from 5% to 3% for all times.

And we await the next Sitting of the Upper House or Senate, when the new Senator who is nominated as the next President thereof will be elected; i.e. Mr Kenny Lalsingh.

In the meantime, although we have heard nothing from Government for some months now, about the PetroCaribe proposals from Venezuela, I heard the Minister responsible for Energy, Hon. Gregory Bowen, saying last week Friday/Saturday that the Agreement with Venezuela is due for signing any day now in St George’s or Caracas.

At the same time, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Nigel John, has been complaining that the powers-that-be have not taken the time to advise or inform the public, and the business community no doubt, with sufficient details about the Caricom Single Market (CSM) and, as we have been advised, Grenada and the other OECS countries are due to join the CSM by June 30, 2006.

So many knowledgeable writers on Caribbean affairs, including many OECS Prime Ministers themselves, have been raising very significant issues that are left very loose or just flying as pie in the sky -- with no concrete foundation or organisational procedure for dealing with them, that I cannot understand why the message is not getting home.

Those OECS Governments, including our own in Grenada, seem to be banking on hopes and dreams to see them through -- and therefore behaving as though the many issues being raised by concerned citizens are no big thing.

Maybe it is all part and parcel of the groundless arrogance that seems to be the trade mark of those who know not but refuse to accept and face their shortcomings; or those who feel that because they are the advisers, or the ones who make and enforce the decisions, then no one should question their authority for so doing.