Violation of the Constitution
Much has been said and will continue to be said about the General Elections held on May 20, 2009, and my name has been used quite extensively in relation to the challenging of the two UDP winners in Bodden Town, Mr. Mark Scotland and Mr. Dwayne Seymour, as a result of my media comments following the announcement of the results.
Let me make it quite clear from the onset that I am not a sore loser (I accepted my loss immediately), but my concern is for the upholding of law and order in this country. Everyone is aware that these two individuals violated S. 19(1)(g) of our Constitution by not declaring publicly (ie: by Gazzette notice) their interest in Government contracts in the required time frame. If this is allowed to go unchallenged, simply on the basis that they were elected by majority, what does this say to others following or watching now? It’s ok to break the law, as long as the majority is on your side? I don’t think this is the case and I am sure you the reader will share this view.
Individuals elected as MLAs are sworn to uphold our Constitution and to Legislate (ie: make Laws) for these islands. It follows naturally that these are the last people that should be seen to be violating either of these. The Attorney General and the Governor share in this responsibility and I am totally at a loss as to why neither of these gentlemen have not stepped forward in the public interest and dealt with this issue before now. The Attorney General is apparently off island at this crucial time and therefore his views or those of his office are unknown or unheard. The Governor made a statement and basically stated that he cannotchallenge as he not a designated “challenger”. This is ironic, when one considers that this same Governor has cost the country millions of dollars by ordering investigations into “alleged” corrupt practices of the judiciary and police, which to date have ended up with one law suit after another against this country. Yet, here we have a clear violation of our Constitution, which he is sworn to uphold, and he does nothing – apart from swearing them into office!
So I say to all and sundry that if this action by my new Representatives in Bodden Town, Mr. Scotland and Mr. Seymour, is allowed to go unchallenged we will have set a dangerous precedent in this country. How are we going to stop future abuses of this type and others, when those at the top appear to have wanton regard for rules and regulations, by breaching our over-arching legal document, our Constitution. It’s ironic that this comes at a time when we have just finished the long drawn out process of getting a modernized Constitution for these islands, which has just been accepted by a majority of the people through the first ever Referendum process and will be implemented in due course.
I anxiously await a response on this matter from the Attorney General of this country and I call on him to take a stand against this violation by our elected representatives and to request the Chief Justice of this country to make a ruling on the matter in the interest of all concerned. I need not remind the legal luminaries that “delay defeats equity”.
I agree with those that say let’s move on and work together for the betterment of the country but we cannot do this unless we start on the right footing. This matter must be resolved and then we can move forward in the proper manner.
Finally, I wish to thank the people of Bodden Town for the humbling privilege of being your Representative over the past four years and I believe history will show that I served your interest well, with dignity and integrity in all my dealings. I also wish to thank all of my supporters island wide for your outpouring of love and concern for me and my family, before and since the elections.
May God continue to bless these beloved islands we call home and may “justice for all” be upheld in our land forever.
Category: Viewpoint
Status grants: from what I can see Cayman needs more Caymanians, if they are contributing to society, and the economy what is your problem? The population is about 55000, and only 15000 can vote. What about the rest of us? If all the expats, paper caymanian left, where would cayman be? Cayman can not, would not exist with out expats living and working here.
Who do you think owns the majority of the high priced condos on this island, it’s not Caymanians. Want to stop everybody from investing in Cayman, than make it legal for only Caymanians to own land or property and stop selling it off piece by piece to the rest of world.
My children were born and raised here, but they were not considered Caymanian, what message does that send to them? They have lived in a country, grown up here, born here, but no sorry you can not call yourself a born a caymanian! What a load of bull! And although I was not a caymanian, their father was. Well thanks to the UDP my children now have a country, do you want to take that away from them now? Get over yourself. The past is done, if you want a future then this discrimination needs to stop!
Don’t want UPD or PPM, then the people who can vote, should have made a stand, and boycotted/protested the election, done something to show what you stood for. Maybe if more of the “paper Caymanians” could vote then things would be different. How many of the 3000 can vote now? I bet they were not included in that 15000.
For a country that calls itself a Christian community you are not acting very Christian like.
To: Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/04/2009 – 23:48.
"Cayman can not, would not exist with out expats living and working here".
If by that you mean that we would not have the economy we do then that is true and obvious. However, that is not a case for handing out Caymanian status. For the most part expats see Cayman as a place to make money and they have a great deal of freedom to do just that. Granting Caymanian status does necessarily reflect the allegiance of the grantee and I have no doubt that if the economy really turns sour expats would leave, Caymanian status or otherwise. Caymanians are here for good. We alone have the long-term stake in this country, for better or worse. You cannot seriously expect that Caymanians would hand over control of their destiny and right to self-determination to expats.
"Who do you think owns the majority of the high priced condos on this island, it’s not Caymanians. Want to stop everybody from investing in Cayman, than make it legal for only Caymanians to own land or property and stop selling it off piece by piece to the rest of world".
I do not believe that there is any country in the world which grants the right to vote on the basis of who owns high-priced condos.
I do not understand your second point. Why would we want to stop everybody from investing in Cayman? Who has proposed making it legal only for Caymanians to own land? Do you have some feudal system in mind where the right to vote is tied to owning property?
You speak of discrimination but discrimination practised in Cayman is often against Caymanians and that is only masked by the grant of Caymanian status. Suddenly firms can boast that they have 60% ‘Caymanian’ partners when in reality nothing has changed.
"My children were born and raised here, but they were not considered Caymanian, what message does that send to them? They have lived in a country, grown up here, born here, but no sorry you can not call yourself a born a caymanian! What a load of bull! And although I was not a caymanian, their father was".
If your children were born and raised in Cayman as the children of a Caymanian father then they are without doubt Caymanian. You seem to be seriously misled on this point.
"Maybe if more of the “paper Caymanians” could vote then things would be different. How many of the 3000 can vote now? I bet they were not included in that 15000".
Things were different because of the ‘paper Caymanian’ vote (your term), since they represented the swing vote that brought the UDP to power. There is no doubt at all that many of the 3000 were included in that 15,000. This was the main reason for the significant increase in the number of registered voters.
If a long-term resident would like the right vote then he/she need only be naturalized as BOTC, obtain Caymanian status and be registered. If he/she cannot be bothered with naturalization then that speaks for volume about your allegiance and commitment to this country and there is no reason at all why you should be given the right to vote.
What are you really so angry about?
What a terrible whine of an article. Either object or accept.
If you object you will win.
The AG could and should easily appoint a leading lawyer from the island to appear as amicus curiae on such an important issue as this. And the mutterings about maintenance are nonsense in the context of a public law claim such as this one.
"But what about climate change?"
Those expats did it, right after they got cabinet-grant status.
But what about climate change?
CC, you’re on the wrong thread. Write an article if you want to talk about climate change.
I am disappointed and let down by both parties. UDP for breaching the constitution
and the PPM for not standing up for the people and challenging the breach. We have
no one to stand up for these islands and its people. We have been failed by our politians
and representatives.
The PPM cannot challenge, only a Bodden Town voter can, if they can secure the funding needed to go to court. Also, there is no limit on a constitutional challenge, only on an elections challenge. Please don’t think that nothing is being done about this, it is.
i wonder if the people of these islands understand the constitution much less the law that was broken. I am on neither side just to be clear but a law was broken and no reprimand for it what a clear message to the young people coming up and so many followed this election, secondly the LOGB said in one of his meetings in regards to Elio situation that we do not need education to run the country well he did it getting heavy advise and schooling after his first term in, thirdly 4 years ago the people said they wanted change from UDP government cause A. mckeeva was going to sell KX to Butch Davis in Jamaica where would CAL be today? B. he gave away 300 Status grants allowing them to vote and gurantee his seat back 4 years later, C people of these islands take a good look at B and tell me how can u blame the PPM for caymanians without work, he took jobs out of the caymanians mouth because those 3 hundred status grants have to work and feed themselves also plus their dependents, how can you not see the plan from 4 years ago? D did any previous government had to deal with two devasting hurricanes in their first two years? hence the island in debt by Mother Nature or God trying to show the people of these islands something. people that saw pictures of the island after the hurricane still cant believe we are at the stage we are at so quickly we got little help from the UK but we did it with the government help and leadership. so just a few thoughts because there is so much both governments have done right andwrong which is why we should have taken them all out and given the independents a chance or mixed it and give them a chance. but tell me how many caymanians know the law how many know the constitution because it sure not taught in schools so what we know of it. the people of Cayman look as though they are still voting for who helps me my family and my freinds or who they here another person say something nice about.
G
to: Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 05/31/2009 – 21:58.
You make some excellent points. However, just to be clear it was 300 Status grants that McKeeva gave away it was 3000 (three thousand). 300 may have been forgiveable.
Why don’t you ask the PPM ex-ministers and their collegues how many status they contributed to that 3000. You may be in for the shock of your life.
All 3,000+ status grants were made by the UDP Cabinet. Whether the PPM suggested persons is entirely irrelevant. It was the granting of status to 3000+ persons that was utterly irresponsible. How old are you – four?! "Teacher, he told me that it was OK to do some so I did more". Is that leadership?
Do me a favor.Constitution not upheld?The Constituion is designed to ensure transparency . It did. .Does anybody believe that anyone would have voted differently if they had known of these contracts 4 days earlier .If this is the kind of insubstantial nonsensical technicality you fall back on Mr Tibbets no wonder your party lost. You have an ability to focus on the irrelevant whist the big issues pass you by . No Judge would uphold the challenge because Judges like to see common sense applied . So waste another $5m on the lawyers ? Well not I guess from PPM funds.The AG is dead right. Good Judgement is in short supply.
I personally feel that both Mr. Scotland and Mr. Seymour should be ashamed of themselves….putting yourself up for public office and from the onset ignoring and not understanding, reading or abiding by our very constitution is in itself should be considered an impeachable offense….shame on you both.
One thing is clear. ossie should challenge or stop whining. the reason he does not want to challenge it directly is a very selfish/political one…..he wants to avoid any possible backlash if there is a bi-election.
The governor has no role in this process…aside from all the comments that he is responsible for upholding the constitution…there is a clear process outlined in the constitution for this and the governor HAS followed it. clear and simple. we all know by now who are the ones that can challenge this. if they dont then there is nothing more to discuss.
We can talk all day about how sad it is that the counstition is not being complied with. But the constitution envisioned that certain aggreived persons would step up and challenge this if it occured. Now that this has not happened, the constitution has actually worked..because this means that the people have spoken andthat the proper democratic process has ran its course, because despite the knowledge of the potential breach they were both voted in. No one challenged it (which is their democratric right because our constitution DOES take into account the fact that we will use our own conscience and value to make judgements in circumstances such as these).
I dont think it so so much sour grapes here..I think it is a matter that some people do not understand what it means for the constitution to "work" ..if they do not get challenged the constitution would have provided the neccessary remedy and yes the constitution would have "worked" like it was supposed to.
"One thing is clear. ossie should challenge or stop whining. the reason he does not want to challenge it directly is a very selfish/political one…..he wants to avoid any possible backlash if there is a bi-election".
I have no doubt the real reason is because it is very expensive and poor Ossie unlike Mark does not have wealthy donors (we know where they hail from) ready to foot the bill. If there is to be any backlash he will get it if he runs no matter who does the challenge.
Why hasn’t Alden volunteered to do this pro-bono?
We have lawyers in the country that will defend Murderers pro-bono, but not defend perceived violations of the constitution on a pro-bono basis.
POOR Ossie ?????????????????????????? Businessman from BT, the person that OWNS Lornas gas station. Can’t be that seem Ossie. you talking about, naaah must be somebody else.
This is indeed a SAD day for Caymanians when the AG will not challenge this breach in the Consitution. Whoelse is suppose to uphold the highest law of the land isn’t it the AG and the HE.??????????.
Come on Caymanians, let us unite in this, it has nothing to do with MS or DS, it could have been my first born, the LAW IS THE LAW.
I wonder if it had been a PPM politician that had not complied with the Constitution what would the Honorable Mckeeva Bush be doing about it. I am sure we would have been sick and tired of hearing him on the talk show and the TV, castigating the offenders. Where is he in all of this, OH he is so quiet because he wants us to forget about it. He probably would have organised a March, to ensure that this breach be challenge.
Os, alot of people are behind you and are very upset, it is just we are are sometimes afraid to come public. Thank you for being our voice.
When will you people grow-up ? no wonder the expats thinks less of you! stop this crap, get along and may the good lord bless these islands forever.
I am an ex-pat and I think less of the people who break constitutional laws than the people who complain about the wrong doers. It seems to me (as an expat who CAN vote) that it is a case of "as long as they win then what ever they did is OK" Remember Watergate??
“I wonder if it had been a PPM politician that had not complied with the
constitution what would the Honorable Mckeeva Bush be doing about it.”
I’ll tell you what he would do………challenge it! You better believe it! If anyone
knows McKeeva Bush, they know he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes
and he certaintly doesn’t back down so easy. He would challenge this just
like how we expect the leader of PPM to challenge it!
I am sure if we collected a contribution from everyone who supported the challenge
we would accumulate enough founds to pay the legal costs! So what do you say Kurt?
Be a leader and lead this challenge!
Owning a gas station in BT does not mean that you are a wealthy person.
The AG’s argument is entirely specious. His job is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law without fear or favour. His argument against upholding it in this case is that could be an advantage two candidates/one political party and a detriment to two political candidates/another political party. It follows that not challenging also invovles benefits and detriments, only the reverse. There is no place for this in any proper consideration of the matter. The Constitution and the rule of law should be upheld regardless of who experiences benefit or detriment. His position is therefore by political, not legal or constitutional, considerations.
"I am sure if we collected a contribution from everyone who supported the challenge we would accumulate enough founds to pay the legal costs!".
There is a common law rule against ‘maintenance’ which is funding litigation to which you are not an interested party. Any "collection plate" would have to bear that in mind. Arguably any BT voter and candidate could contribute but not necessarily anyone else.
“There is a common law rule against ‘maintenance’ which is funding litigation to which
you are not an interested party. Any “collection plate” would have to bear that in mind.
Arguably any BT voter and candidate could contribute but not necessarily anyone else”.
Arguably the people of the Cayman Islands would be classified as an ‘interested party’.
After all it is the peoples constitution that was breached!
I am tired of all the buck passing and excuses, if we aren’t going to do something
about it – let’s move on.
The Attorney General is not going to do anything. Why should he? He has the comforts of a new Government who will protect him from any bad press.
What constitution will he be holding up anyway, don’t we realize that the new government has started off on the footing of that of a ‘dictorship’. The whimpy PPM are just too lazy to do anything about it and since the Caymanians are now overrun by the white Jamaican’s who control the peasant ones we all know what will happen if we open our mouths to speak up.
Listen to me, the day the constitution was ignored and not upheld was the saddest day in this country. Mckeeva’s government is going to over-turn and over-run everything there is that we knew was Caymanian. So take the last few minutes of it that is left and savour it becasue we are outnumbered and we don’t have the amunition to fight the opposition with.
Caymanians, we better change our passports from burgundy to blue because we will further ahead now with one of those than our own.
Like a former politician once said, I am sorry the day that Mckeeva was every elected to the Government.
We are doomed, doomed, doomed and the dogs won’t even touch our supper!!
Mr, Bodden what would happen if you are not elected? After all you made it clear that it wasn’t about the constitution but about you losing your seat when you stood on the television and said, and I quote: – "this will be challenged and any how I am not one of those three elected..I mean it’s not about me but about upholding the constitution" What happened, did your mouth get ahead of your brains and let out what you meant to keep secret?
It is often said that evil prevails when good men do nothing. It is also often mooted that justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Ossie, you and every other Bodden Town elector, the AG, the governor and the Supervisor of Elections all stood by and did nothing.
Justice will be seen to be done even if a constitutional challenge yields the same result.
The most shocking sound is not the screams of your enemy but the silence of your friends.
The silence in Bodden Town is deafening to the rest of the Cayman Islands and indeed the world.
The reason that everyone is waiting for the AG to make the move is because if a private citizen make the challenge (which includes the unsuccessful canidates) they will have to make it through the courts with personal lawyers. At that point that individual will have to foot the lawyers bill and in these tough times no one is gonna spend a couple hundred thousand dollars just to uphold the consitution.
What needs to happen is that lawyers need to understand the importance of this challenge and put aside their greed and work pro bono because it is quite apprarent that the AG is not going to make the call.
Come on Bodden Town Lawyers/voters if you need to spruce up your resume, here is your chance go pro bono
Then make a challenge!!! Its infuriating that everyone is pointing the finger at someone else to take the step forward and register the challenge to this clear constitutional breach.
Its the biggest problem in this country – no one seems to want to stick their head above the parapet and stand up for what they believe in. Its the same with crime – everyone is quick to crticise the police for not solving all the crimes but there is an overiding attitude here (particularly amongst locals im afraid) that they will not get involved – its soooo frustrating!!!!!
It seems to me that this is such a simple issue that someone could represent oneself without any lawyer. The case should not fail just because of lack of legal representation, because the breach was admitted. So the question remains, what would be the cost to anyone just going ahead and doing it?
It may seem simple to a non-lawyer, but I assure you it isn’t. I pity an unrepresented litigant in a case where a QC is on the other side.
Ozzy sounds like a sore loser.
If he needs a job, then he should contact the department of employment relations – the same department his PPM Government underfunded for the past 4 years.
Mr Bodden, why don’t you take the issue to the court yourself? Surely as a citizen of the country you can petition the courts directly and don’t need the AG or HE to do it for you?
I completely agree. It baffles me that we have not heard any thing from the Attorney General’s office regarding this very important issue in Cayman. It also baffles me (but doesn’t really surprises me) that our governor has simply decided that he is in no position to question the BT results, but leaves it in the hands of the AG. I am not a BT voter, or a PPM or UDP supporter. I support whomever I believe would be the best candidate for the job. And I say this to let the readers know that I am not biased in any way.
What I do support,however, is our law and constitution. Why not do a by-election and make the voters of BT choose again? This time let everything be in accordance with the law. What are the UDP members afraid of? I worry that if we go down this road where we only apply the law some of the time, if it suits us, then whats next? This is a very slippery slope that we are headed down Cayman.
"So I say to all and sundry thatif this action by my new Representatives in Bodden Town, Mr. Scotland and Mr. Seymour, is allowed to go unchallenged we will have set a dangerous precedent in this country".
This seems like a reluctant concession speech. If Messrs. Scotland and Seymour are his "new Representatives in Bodden Town", then he is suggesting that they have been validly elected. It is now quite clear that the AG will not make any challenge. Mr. Bodden was the first to utter a definite promise of a challenge after the election result but now has clearly backed away from it without explanation.