Judgment Expected this Week in Petition Case against Eugene Hamilton

 

This time around the focus is on the incumbent parliamentary representative for St. Christopher 8, Mr. Eugene Hamilton, of the Peoples Action Movement, (PAM), and the man he defeated on 25th January, Mr. Cedric Liburd of the St. Kitts Labour Party.

A release, issued by PAM on Monday 11th October, indicated that judgment in the Election Petition case, brought by Mr. Liburd against Mr. Hamilton, is scheduled to be handed down on Wednesday 13th October. The matter will be presided over by Justice Hariprashard-Charles, who is expected to make known her decision, via tele-conference from her base in Tortola, Virgin Islands.

The PAM release stated that, “In February, defeated Labour candidate for constituency# 8 Cedric Liburd, filed a Petition claiming that Hon. Eugene Hamilton was ineligible for election or nomination for election in the 25th January 2010 General Elections”.

“The basis of Cedric Liburd’s Petition was that Eugene Hamilton is by his own act a citizen of the United States; that he applied for, accepted and travelled on a Passport issued by the Government of the United States; that in 2008 and 2009, Mr. Hamilton travelled several times on Passports numbered 00158215 and 055211598 issued by the United States; and that Mr. Hamilton’s US citizenship has not been renounced. Cedric Liburd was forced at the trial to admit under cross-examination that all of this was all a lie”, said the PAM release.

PAM stated that, “It is accepted that if this were true, Mr. Hamilton’s election would be in violation of a Constitutional disqualification prohibiting him from being a member of the National Assembly. This disqualification applies to any person who by virtue of his own act is under an acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power or state”.

The Election Petition was heard on July 23rd and 26th, 2010. Since then the Attorney General’s Office has intervened in the case, on the ground that Cedric Liburd’s Petition raised issues of grave Constitutional importance and called for the interpretation of Section 28 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

PAM argues that given the intervention of the Attorney General, Mr. Liburd’s legal fees will be covered by tax payers instead of his personal funds.

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!