Derek Achong

Can­di­date for the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) po­lit­i­cal leader Karen Nunez-Tesheira and two mem­bers of her slate in the par­ty’s up­com­ing in­ter­nal elec­tions will learn the out­come of their bid to post­pone the three-day elec­tion process on Wednes­day.

High Court Judge Devin­dra Ram­per­sad set the date and time for his de­ci­sion on the trio’s in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion af­ter hear­ing sub­mis­sions from their at­tor­neys and those for PNM gen­er­al sec­re­tary Fos­ter Cum­mings dur­ing a hear­ing yes­ter­day evening.

Through the in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion, the trio is seek­ing an or­der post­pon­ing the elec­tion un­til their sub­stan­tive case over al­leged is­sues in the elec­tion is de­ter­mined.

In the al­ter­na­tive, they are seek­ing an or­der com­pelling the com­mit­tee to host the elec­tion on one day and an­oth­er seek­ing the dis­clo­sure of mem­bers’ con­tact in­for­ma­tion for can­vass­ing.

Pre­sent­ing sub­mis­sions on be­half of Nunez-Tesheira, Dr Ken­neth Butch­er, who is vy­ing for the post of chair­man, and Bish­op Vic­tor Phillip, who is con­test­ing the post of elec­tion of­fi­cer, at­tor­ney Egon Em­brack claimed that the par­ty’s in­cum­bent ex­ec­u­tive coun­cil did not have the pow­er to de­cide that the elec­tion should be held on three sep­a­rate days (No­vem­ber 26, 27 and De­cem­ber 4), over a nine-day pe­ri­od in­stead of on one day.

He sug­gest­ed that un­der the par­ty’s con­sti­tu­tion, on­ly its an­nu­al con­ven­tion could make such a change, as he quot­ed from a seg­ment of a book writ­ten by the par­ty’s founder Dr Er­ic Williams, ti­tled In­ward Hunger: The Ed­u­ca­tion of a Prime Min­is­ter.

Em­brack claimed that the fi­nal list of mem­bers el­i­gi­ble to vote in the poll, which was pub­lished by the par­ty’s elec­tions su­per­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee last week­end, was “in­un­dat­ed with ir­reg­u­lar­i­ties.”

He al­so con­tend­ed that his clients were placed at a dis­ad­van­tage, as they were not pro­vid­ed with mem­bers’ con­tact in­for­ma­tion, which he claimed in­cum­bent ex­ec­u­tive mem­bers had ac­cess to.

“We are fight­ing against the ad­van­tage of in­cum­bents,” Em­brack said.

“This elec­tion is skewed. It is flawed and the claimants do not have a fair chance,” he added.

Re­spond­ing to the sub­mis­sions, Se­nior Coun­sel Rus­sell Mar­tineau ques­tioned why Cum­mings was list­ed as the de­fen­dant in the case as rep­re­sen­ta­tive of all PNM mem­bers, ex­clud­ing the trio.

“It (the law­suit) does not say Mr Cum­mings has breached any­thing. It is pro­ce­du­ral­ly flawed,” Mar­tineau said, as he claimed that the trio was un­able to prove that they were prej­u­diced.

He al­so ques­tioned the tim­ing of the law­suit and cor­re­spond­ing in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion, as he point­ed out that they were aware of the planned changes since they were an­nounced in Au­gust.

Mar­tineau main­tained that the par­ty’s con­sti­tu­tion did not man­date that the elec­tion be held on one day as con­tend­ed by the trio.

Mar­tineau sug­gest­ed that the trio should have wait­ed un­til the elec­tion was over to mount their chal­lenge.

“Stop­ping an elec­tion is a very se­ri­ous thing. You are deny­ing the mem­ber­ship of the par­ty their right to vote,” Mar­tineau said.

He al­so de­nied Em­brack’s com­plaints over the mem­ber­ship list were le­git­i­mate.

“He is mak­ing it ap­pear every­thing is in sham­bles when it is not,” Mar­tineau said.

He said that the trio should not be en­ti­tled to mem­bers’ con­tact in­for­ma­tion.

“It is not right to be dis­clos­ing per­sons’ per­son­al in­for­ma­tion like that. We ought not to do it,” he said.

The trio is al­so be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Pe­ter Tay­lor.