Tweet
2011-12-05 14:12:40 | (0 Comments)
KD Knight, lead attorney for the People's National Party. (File photo).The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the People’s National Party which is challenging an order for several party members to answer questions in relation to the Trafigura donation.
Two weeks ago, Supreme Court Judge Lennox Campbell turned down a request for the PNP to take the matter to the constitutional court.
However, this morning, the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Campbell’s ruling saying there were valid arguments for the matter to be fully ventilated in the Constitutional Court.
The appeals court also ordered that the Trafigura hearing in the Supreme Court should be suspended pending the outcome of the motion in the Constitutional Court.
The Court of Appeal has ordered that the matter should be heard in the Constitutional Court early in the first term next year.
This means that the issue will not be settled before the December 29 general election.
The Director of Public Prosecution, acting on behalf of Dutch authorities, wants to question several PNP officials, including President Portia Simpson Miller, about a $31 million donation to the party by Trafigura Beheer.
At the time of the donation, Trafigura had an oil lifting contract with the Jamaican Government.
Beyond that, it is illegal for Dutch companies to donate to political parties.
It is for this reason the Dutch authorities wanted to question the PNP officials as part of their probe into the actions of Trafigura.
PNP lawyers, led by KD Knight, have been insisting that the order for the PNP officials to answer the questions of the Dutch authorities is a breach of their Constitutional rights.
The PNP had also made a submission for the Trafigura matter to be held in chambers instead of in open court.
In turning down the motion for the Trafigura hearing to go to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court judge Lennox Campbell had said that the questions being put to the PNP members were served on them from last year and they had enough time to raise their concerns.
KD Knight, lead attorney for the People's National Party. (File photo).The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the People’s National Party which is challenging an order for several party members to answer questions in relation to the Trafigura donation.
Two weeks ago, Supreme Court Judge Lennox Campbell turned down a request for the PNP to take the matter to the constitutional court.
However, this morning, the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Campbell’s ruling saying there were valid arguments for the matter to be fully ventilated in the Constitutional Court.
The appeals court also ordered that the Trafigura hearing in the Supreme Court should be suspended pending the outcome of the motion in the Constitutional Court.
The Court of Appeal has ordered that the matter should be heard in the Constitutional Court early in the first term next year.
This means that the issue will not be settled before the December 29 general election.
The Director of Public Prosecution, acting on behalf of Dutch authorities, wants to question several PNP officials, including President Portia Simpson Miller, about a $31 million donation to the party by Trafigura Beheer.
At the time of the donation, Trafigura had an oil lifting contract with the Jamaican Government.
Beyond that, it is illegal for Dutch companies to donate to political parties.
It is for this reason the Dutch authorities wanted to question the PNP officials as part of their probe into the actions of Trafigura.
PNP lawyers, led by KD Knight, have been insisting that the order for the PNP officials to answer the questions of the Dutch authorities is a breach of their Constitutional rights.
The PNP had also made a submission for the Trafigura matter to be held in chambers instead of in open court.
In turning down the motion for the Trafigura hearing to go to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court judge Lennox Campbell had said that the questions being put to the PNP members were served on them from last year and they had enough time to raise their concerns.
Comment