The Defense Rests! Oral Summations Wednesday!

January 23, 2012

As widely expected and anticipated, the sixth day of the Election Petition Trial saw the testimony of the Registration Officer for Nevis, Mrs. Bernadette Lawrence. What had not been expected however is the speed in which the lawyers for the Petitioner would get what they needed from her to make their case against her. Court resumed at 9:00 am sharp and Mrs. Lawrence was sworn in shortly thereafter. She affirmed her affidavit and swore the contents were true and correct. Then she was handed over for cross examination.
In her affidavit, the Registration Officer admits having attended NRP executive meetings but claims to have only attended those meeting between the periods November 1997 – February 2000; and from 2007 – April 2009. She further testified that she attended one meeting in 2007; two in 2008 and two in 2009. Seemingly hopeful to dispel any appearance of conflict of interest or bias, she was adamant that she did not attend any Executive meetings of the NRP in 2010 or 2011, only in those periods mentioned previously. She did not realize however that she had helped S.C. Douglas Mendes establish with the Court her long and high level investment in the NRP.
What could be called a “light moment” (but maybe demonstrative of her mindset and character), came when she was challenged by S.C. Mendes that she was loyal to the NRP. She denied this. “Aren’t you a supporter of the NRP”, Mendes asked. “Yes”, she replied. “But a supporter does not have to be loyal”.

She said that she stopped attending NRP Executive meetings in 2009 mainly because her position at the Nevis Financial Services Marketing Department was demanding and she did not have the time. She told the Court she was approached by the Supervisor of Elections, Mr. Leroy Benjamin, about taking the position of Registration Officer. She accepted that position in May of 2010. She would later go on to testify that her duties as Registration Officers required her to work every month and that she worked an average of 4-5 hours a day. She was then asked to explain how is it that she stopped attending NRP meeting because her job Nevis Financial Services was so demanding that she could not devote time for (according to her) five NRP Executive meetings in three years; but she could now, still having the same job and with more responsibilities, find time to devote the 4-5 hours required to perform her duties as Registration Officer. Failing to reconcile the two, she offered only “I saw it as National Service, so I made the sacrifice”. Mr. Mendes was quick to point out however that it was neither National Service, as she is being paid for the duties she performed as Registration Officer; nor a sacrifice, as all the time she spent performing duties as Registration Officer was done during the time she was being paid to do something else.

With regard to a letter sent by the Hon. Mark Brantley on July 25th, 2011 requesting the objection notices she said in her affidavit that she gave eighty three (83) on August 4th, 2011. Asked how many Mr. Brantley had request she attempted to evade, and there was some back and forth. However sensing the impatience of His Lordship Lionel Jones, when asked directly by the Judge how many Mr. Brantley had requested, she admitted that 203 objection notices had been requested.

She would go on to say that she did not give the additional 120 notices because the information was not as it was on the voters list. When asked what information was not as it was on the voters list, she said occupation and addresses. It was revealed that on the request list the preparer had inadvertently put the occupation in the address column and the addresses in the occupation column for 120 persons. When asked if it was not “obvious to anyone with goodwill and minimal intelligence” that the information was simply inverted; she said it had not occurred to her. She said she did not check that 120 names with her records. Notwithstanding, she would later go on to admit that where polling division information was not on the objection forms turn in by Halstead Byron and/or other (NRP), she would check to see if the information corresponds to anyone on the list. Extending this courtesy to the NRP and not Hon. Brantley (CCM) established her bias with the Court.

Mrs. Lawrence told the Court that she collected all the objections to the January 31 master list on February 10th. She sealed them in an envelope which she opened on the 11th of February and began sorting by polling division. She spent 3-5 hours every day and was done by the 20th February. A copy of the list was given to the Office Manager, Ms. Beulah Mills. The objections were then sorted by objector. This was finished sometime in March. She told the Court further that when she would fill in the notices, then a posting list was drawn up by an Office Clerk. She would see the Clerk off to the Post office with the notices and await her return. This would all be done in 1-2 days. However, Douglas Mendes was able to show evidence in the form of scores of objections that were held for about 2 weeks before they were sent to the post office. (Post Office stamp was 2 weeks after date on which the objection was signed.) Asked my S.C. Mendes, “Do you accept that the evidence shows that the postings were 2 weeks after the notices were written up”. She answered meekly, “Yes’.

She went on to tell the Court, in considering the objections, she did her own investigations and was able to ascertain where ALL the persons objected to were actually living. But of all the names (removed from the list) that Mendes went on to inquire, she could not identify where those persons were living. Asked to explain, she said she had found some. Pressed again, she said that she “did not find a specific place, but a general area”.

The law requires a person being objected to receive notice of the hearing at least five days in advance of the hearing. The Petitioner was able to show scores of instances when this was not the case. Some were post stamped on the 26th of April for a hearing on the 29th. Others were post stamped on the 27th and 28th April for hearings on the 29th April. Some were post stamped even later for that same hearing date. When asked if it is not clear that these persons could not have gotten the notices by the five days required by law, she said no. At this point, His Lordship, seemingly disgusted by Mrs. Lawrence’s facetiousness, asked her, “So what about the persons whose notices went out on the 4th of May; could they have gotten the notice in time for the hearing on the 29th of April?” Not willing to risk the wrath of His Lordship she answered “clearly not”; and thankfully she also accepted thereafter that those persons who were sent objection notices with no hearing date would not have known when to come.

Mrs. Lawrence swore to the Court that she checked the posting lists to ensure that the notices went out on time. Armed with this S.C. Mendes was able to force from her that, having a posting list that marked the objection notices as going out on the 4th of May for an objection that was held April 29th, she must have known when she was later making her decision that those persons would not have gotten the notices in time to attend the hearing. She answered yes. The court broke for lunch at this point.

Back from lunch Mr. Mendes resumed this line of questions after a sidebar; stating the she “knew that objection letters were not registered until the 27th, 28th of April and 4th of May, so persons could not have gotten them for a hearing on April 29th. Mrs. Lawrence now tried to evade answering the question. After much back and forth Mendes made it clear that he had all week and the next, so he ask his question until he got an answer to his question. Anthony Astaphan, Lead counsel for the Respondents rose to make an objection saying that Mrs. Lawrence had already answered but that “it may not be the answer His Lordship wants because it doesn’t make sense … but the Court should accept or reject the evidence”. To this the Judge replied, “What evidence? We are still waiting for her to answer.”

Mendes continued. “Was fresh notices sent to those who you knew could not have gotten objection notice by the date set for the hearing?”
Mrs. Lawrence answered: “No.”
Mendes: “Why not?”
Mrs. Lawrence: “Because they were so many and it would require new hearing dates.”
Mendes: “Any other reason?” She began answering. Mendes cut her off saying: “I put it to you Mrs. Lawrence, that the only reason was that an election was coming, and new hearing dates would mean you could not take the names off the list.” (Now may of 2011)
Mrs. Lawrence did not deny, but replied much to the amazement and amusement of those in attendance: “I had no idea when an election might be coming.”

At this point Lead Counsel Mendes, satisfied he had made the case he needed to make, ended his questioning.

Both side having presented and court is adjourned until Wednesday January 25th at 9:00 am when closing statements (oral summations) will commence. His Lordship, Justice Lionel Jones indicated that following these oral summations he would let Counsel know if he required any written to make his judgment.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 11:41 AM and is filed under Articles & Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.