Tag: Rhondalee Braithwaite

CRITICISM OF TURKS AND CAICOS ATTORNEY GENERAL

Post author By Cem Kınay
Post date 18 March 2013

More criticism of Turks and Caicos AG after election flip-flop
Published on March 18, 2013 ,Caribbean News Now

The acting attorney general tried to withdraw out of time election challenges against five sitting members of the TCI House of Assembly: (L-R) George Lightbourne (PNP); Edwin Astwood (PDM); Derek Taylor (PDM); Josephine Connolly (PDM); and Delroy Williams (PDM)

By Caribbean News Now contributor

PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — Acting Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles has come in for even more criticism following her unexpected decision on Saturday to attempt to withdraw her election challenges to five sitting members of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) House of Assembly.

On Friday, March 9, Braithwaite-Knowles had filed a total of six challenges based on late or inadequate filing of notices with the Integrity Commission of interests in government contracts. Only one of such challenges was brought within the statutory five-day time limit – that against Amanda Misick, Progressive National Party (PNP) candidate in the Cheshire Hall/Richmond Hill by-election.

On Thursday and Friday, Braithwaite-Knowles argued before Chief Justice Edwin Goldsbrough in the Supreme Court in Grand Turk that Misick was disqualified from election as a result of her late filing of a required declaration of interests in government contracts.

However, the chief justice ruled against the acting attorney general in the Misick matter on Friday, thus allowing the by-election to go ahead as planned.

Out of time challenges by the acting attorney general against five sitting members of the House of Assembly: George Lightbourne (PNP); Edwin Astwood (PDM); Derek Taylor (PDM); Josephine Connolly (PDM); and Delroy Williams (PDM) for their alleged failure to disclose government contracts prior to the general elections in November last year were heard on Saturday, at which point Braithwaite-Knowles attempted to withdraw her applications.

However, in denying this request, the chief justice indicated that there were serious issues of law to be determined, which he needed to study in depth, and accordingly adjourned the case until April 9.

Braithwaite-Knowles’ overall conduct of the matter and the ongoing leakage of what should have been confidential information from the Attorney General’s Chambers prior to her filing the relevant applications with the court had already resulted in allegations of partisanship and of intentionally destabilising the TCI.

Braithwaite-Knowles is well known for her support of the PNP and a personal friendship with Premier Rufus Ewing, and her actions against predominantly Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) members of the Assembly fuelled this controversy.

Following the acting attorney general’s surprise decision on Saturday, a local weblog known to support the PNP has accused the Attorney General’s Chambers of “causing public alarm and attempting to destabilise the Turks and Caicos Islands.”

The cases in question stem from what seems to be varying interpretations of the exact nature of conditional Crown land leases and the resulting freehold title – whether they are an open contract with the government or a simple asset – something that was not made clear in instructions to the political parties by the Integrity Commission.

However, such Crown land leases appear never to have been treated as a binding contract by the government. In many reported cases, the agreed pricing contained in the lease was thrown out by the former PNP administration and local leaseholders were forced to pay a much higher price for the land than that specified. In some cases, leaseholders abandoned the leases and gave up the monies already paid down on the conditional lease. Many in the TCI therefore believe the leases are agreements subject to change by the government and are not binding contracts.

The new reporting requirement, albeit arguable in scope, resulted from the manipulation of the sale of Crown land by members and supporters of the PNP prior to the August 2009 imposition of direct rule by Britain. In what were called “land flips”, the PNP government ministers, relatives and supporters were alleged to have had parcels of Crown land appraised at a low value, then purchased the land for belonger discounts of as much as 75 percent and then within days resold the land for much higher prices to pre-arranged buyers.

A number of criminal charges of fraud and corruption laid against 12 former PNP ministers, their family members and others relate to this practice of land flipping.

However, according to Premier Ewing, the prosecutions, which are due to go to trial next month, are “a farce.”

News

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM OPPOSITION LEADER HON. SHARLENE CARTWRIGHT-ROBINSON ON THE LEGAL CHALLENGES AGAINST PDM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS

Post author By Cem Kınay
Post date 13 March 2013

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM OPPOSITION LEADER HON. SHARLENE CARTWRIGHT-ROBINSON ON THE LEGAL CHALLENGES AGAINST PDM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS

My Party remains vigilant in protecting and defending the rights of every Turks and Caicos Islander through strong representation in the House of Assembly and by completing the Objectives outlined in our Party’s Constitution and Campaign Manifesto (The Blue Print), chiefly among to form the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands through a majority of members supporting our Party, the People’s Democratic Movement. Despite the recent legal challenge against four of our members by the Attorney General’s Chambers, we will continue to provide strong representation leading our people in the Right Direction.

On Friday March 8th, after a long day of waiting for the Attorney General’s Office to take legal action in the Amanda Misick’s Integrity Commission Notice matter, I instructed our Attorney’s Garland and Co. to file my Party’s case against Ms. Missick in the Supreme Court in Providenciales. We did so because the merits of our arguments are substantially different from those of the AG’s office.

At 4.00pm after our Attorneys had completed this process the PNP rushed to file a case against our candidate Oral Selver claiming that he made a false declaration. We will vigorously defend the veracity and completeness of our candidate Hon. Oral Selver in the Courts.
After more than 24 hours of rumors that the AG’s Chambers were going to be challenging sitting PDM Members and soon after this Event, our Attorneys became aware that the AG’s office was planning to file a separate matter not only against the PNP’s candidate for Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill but also against four of sitting members namely: Hon. Edwin Astwood, Hon. Josephine Connolly, Hon. Derek Taylor and Hon. Delroy Williams.
Several attempts were made by our members to obtain the details of the allegations but the Acting Attorney General did not make it available or answer any further calls. Our members became officially aware of the nature of the case when the AG’s Office issued publicly a Press Release. Our members up until that time received no documents including a letter or Summons neither was our Party made aware. We view this move as unfortunate and unprofessional.

We view this entire act as completely misguided and untimely and will defend our Members’ right to remain sitting members of the House of Assembly. Contrary to public discourse, this matter has nothing to do with Conditional Purchase Lease, the Integrity Commission or the flipping of crown land. We will defend their good name, honor and integrity.

We wish to encourage our supporters and all Turks and Caicos Islanders to remain vigilant as the process is brought before the courts. My party respects the rule of law and we encourage our citizens to allow the matters that are now before the courts to be aired.

News

Statement by Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing about Attorney General’s Challenges in Turks and Caicos Islands

Post author By Cem Kınay
Post date 11 March 2013

STATEMENT BY PREMIER HON. DR RUFUS EWING ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHALLENGES TO SIX SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
The Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands is duly authorized to and has issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands under section 53(2) of the Constitution, challenging the veracity of the declarations of five elected members of the House of Assembly, namely Hon. Derek Taylor, Hon. Josephine Connelly, Hon. George Lightbourne, Hon. Delroy Williams and Hon. Edwin Astwood for failing to declare their interests in freehold property with a subsisting Crown charge.
If these charges are proven, then according to the statement issued by the Acting Attorney General, these elected persons will be disqualified and By-elections will have to be held for each of the vacated seats.
The Acting Attorney General has similarly filed against Ms. Amanda Missick for failing on or before nomination day, to declare her interest in freehold property with a Crown charge, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.
Proceedings have also been issued against Mr. Oral Selver by a registered voter in the Cheshire Hall/Richmond Hill Constituency, for his failure on or before nomination day, to declare his interest in a Lease hold property, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.

If either of Ms. Amanda Missick or Mr. Oral Selver is found in violation of section 49(1)(f )of the Constitution, then that person would be disqualified from being nominated and the remaining candidate would run unopposed. If both Ms. Misick and Mr. Selver are found to be in violation then both would be disqualified, and a new By-election date would have to be set. If neither is disqualified, then the By-election would proceed as planned on March 22.
The case against Ms. Missick, along with that against Mr. Selver and all other members of the House of Assembly will be heard this week.
It is unfortunate that we have found ourselves at this point when our country, political parties and candidates can ill afford the exorbitant cost associated with elections, campaigning, and court hearings. We can call these teething pains of a new Constitution and electoral system or perhaps it is the manifestation of poorly drafted laws, which in many instances are in conflict with each other. There was also an obvious lack of oversight on the part of the Integrity Commission, Elections Office and Political Parties, which might have otherwise have prevented this situation from arising.
At this time, I am calling on the Attorney General Chambers, Integrity Commission, Elections Office, Political parties and Judiciary to work diligently and all together to expeditiously resolve these issues, and to once and for all put mechanisms in place to prevent them from happening in the future. It is past time for us as a country to move beyond politics and focus instead on the business of the restoration of democracy, political stability, economic recovery and nation building.

Tags Attorney general turks and caicos, Cem Kinay, Change for Turks and Caicos Islands, Dellis Cay, Democracy for turks and Caicos islands, Dr.Rufus Ewing, Elections 2012, governor todd, Grand Turk, Joe Grant, PDM, PNP, politics in turks and caicos islands, Providenciales, providenciales turks and caicos islands, Rhondalee Braithwaite, turks and caicos, Turks and Caicos islands, TURKSJOURNAL

News

The Electoral and Constitutional Fiasco in Turks and Caicos Islands

Post author By Cem Kınay
Post date 9 March 2013

Published in TCI POST on 09th March 2013.

The Attorney General vs Ms. Amanda Missick
The Acting Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands has filed in the supreme court against Ms. Amanda Missick stating the following:
“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.
FACT: It is a fact that Ms. Amanda Missick has a property 60804/138 with a TCIG belonger discount charge (see exhibit A)
According to the Integrity Commission and the Attorney General such a charge is considered to be a contract with Government and the Candidate shall to give NOTICE to the Integrity Commission on or before Nomination Day, in accordance with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution.
Disputable: It is disputable whether someone who has a Crown freehold property with a subsistent belonger discount charge (having had the property for less than 10 years after obtaining freehold title), is considered as having a contract with Government.
FACT: If a potential Candidate does not comply with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution 2011 he /she shall not be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly. It states: 49.—(1) No person shall be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly who, on the date of his or her nomination for election: (f) is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any contract with the Government and has not, by that date, disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it;
FACT: The Constitution does not give a defined time period prior to Nomination Day during which such notice of contract with Government should be made. It simply states that such contracts should be “by that date (NOMINATION DAY), disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it”
FACT: There is no prescribed form for giving such notice of contract with Government to the Integrity Commission. It simply says “disclosure in notice to the Integrity Commission”. This fact is also supported by the varied instruments of submission used by other elected members of the House of Assembly during the 2012 nomination process, who have made declarations under section 49 (1)f. Some used emailed submission, some used written hand delivered letters and some could have even called in.

Amanda-Lease Cancellation
THEREFORE:
FACT: Ms Amanda Missick made a Declaration to the Integrity Commission in on Oct 24, 2012 and this was publicized by the Integrity Commission in a Contracts Notice Register (see exhibit B). This declaration should have satisfied the condition under Section 49 (1)f of the Constitution, for nomination in the By-election, since such the notice is not time bound prior to nomination day and there is no legal requirement to make another declaration to the Integrity Commission unless there is additional information to be declare or remove, which is not the case with Ms. Missick.
Conclusion: Ms. Amanda Missick should not be disqualified. She did declare her interest to the Integrity Commission on time as she did so on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013, on a form used for members of the House of Assembly to declare their registrable Interest (including contracts with Government) which is a public document.
Also if the Judge rules that Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is NOT contract with Government, then Ms. Missick would have had nothing to declare and should not be disqualified.
Furthermore:
If it is determined by the Courts that Crown Freehold title with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government, this should not affect Ms Missick as she made declaration of such contract on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013.
I rest my case and the learned Judge should see it likewise.
So I am encouraging all PNPs to Stay the Course!
Cheshire Hall Voter (Plaintiff) Vs Oral Selver

Oral Leasehold
A Cheshire Hall Voter filed in the Courts on March 8, 2013 against Isaac Oral Selver on the grounds that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 49(1)f of the TCI Constitution.
It has been discovered that Mr. Oral Selver is the Leasee of Crown land 50206/1/1 – North Caicos (2.5 acres) which was issued on 12.11.2004 for a period of 3 years. Mr. Selver failed to pay his lease and in April 2011, he wrote to the PS of the Lands Department to have his lease extended. His letter was acknowledged in April 2011, and he was given conditions upon which the lease would be extended. The conditions included obtaining a building permit which he had, as stated in his reply letter and payment of arrears on the lease. Mr. Selver accepted the Offer and paid the arrears on the Property on December 24, 2012 (shortly after 2012 general elections).
Oral Lease Payment
The Plaintiff is of the view that Mr. Selver had a contract with Government on nomination day 2012 (October 25, 2012) and did not declare this interest at that time as required by Section 49(1)f of the constitution.
The Plaintiff is also of the view that Mr. Oral Selver still has a contract with Government i.e. the lease on property 50206/1/1 as he has accepted the conditional offer to extend the lease and is actively engaged with the Lands Department to retain the lease, which still remains in his name on the Lands register (see exhibit). Also of note is that the application procedure by the Lands Department for the termination of the lease has not been done. This procedure was use in the termination of a Conditional Purchase Lease (CPL) owned by Ms Amanda Missick, on property 60400/277 –Chalk Sound. Ms. Missick obtained the CPL around the same time as Mr Selver in 2004 and was denied extension without hesitation, that culminated in the cancellation of her lease on March 22, 2010.
Therefore:
We conclude that Mr Oral Selver failed to declare his contract with Government by nomination days October 25, 2012 and March 1, 2013 and should be disqualified under Section 49 (1)f.
The Attorney General
Vs
George Lightbourne
Hugh Derek Taylor
Josephine Connelly
Edwin Astwood
Vaden Delroy Williams
The Acting Attorney General is challenging the defendants listed, under section 53(2) of the constitution “An application to the Supreme Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1) may be made by the Attorney General or by any person who is a registered elector; and an application for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(b) may also be made by any member of the House of Assembly” It has been determined that the defendants have not filed all of their contracts (Crown freehold property with subsistent belonger discount charge) with Government and should be disqualified.
Contracts Notice Register – General Elections_001 Copy
The question for the Judge to rule on in this case is whether Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government. If the Judge rule that it is then all of the elected members listed above will be disqualified and cease being members of the House of Assembly.
The next question to be determined by (Judge or AG?) is how should the vacated 5 seats in the House of Assembly be filled?
I am of the view that:
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Wheeland), should go to a By-election if the elected member is disqualified.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had only 2 candidates contesting and returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Grand Turk North or Grand Turk South), that the seat should be turned over to the other candidate upon disqualification of the elected candidate. If the non-elected Candidate is unavailable then the seat should go to a By-election.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning more than 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg All-Islands Constituency), that the vacated seats due to disqualifications should be filled using the non-elected candidates based on the next highest number of votes and availability.
The British has indeed made a mockery of our democracy and the judicial system has fallen victim to the poorly drafted and ill-conceived laws enacted by the British, including of 2011 Constitution which is top of the list.
This is indeed a time for the PNP and PDM to come together and form a coalition Government and to fast track this country towards independence. I firmly believe that it is our people as opposed to our leaders and elected officials that are against unity and coalition in preference of the euphoria of partisan politics. It is however, our leaders who must make that bold decisions and lead the people in the direction of a united front in the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

News

Who is behind the New Political Chaos in Turks and Caicos Islands?

Post author By Cem Kınay
Post date 9 March 2013

MEDIA STATEMENT BY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL RHONDALEE BRAITHWAITE-KNOWLES ON CHALLENGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

“Separate and apart from the confidential declaration required to made to the Integrity Commission under the Integrity Commission Ordinance by a person in public life, the Constitution requires a candidate for election, on nomination day to make a declaration that he or she is qualified for election and that no disqualification mentioned in section 49(1) of the Constitution applies to him or her. In addition, section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution requires such a candidate to notify the Integrity Commission, prior to nomination day, of the existence of any contract between that candidate and the Government. Failure to so notify the Integrity Commission would result in a candidate being disqualified to stand in an election.

“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.

“On the basis of the background research undertaken I have also come to the conclusion that the election of certain sitting members of the House of Assembly should be challenged under section 53(2) of the Constitution. In that regard, challenges have also been filed today before the Supreme Court challenging the elections of Mr George Lightbourne elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk North Electoral District; Mr. Edwin Astwood elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk, South Electoral District; Mr. Derek Taylor member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District; Mrs. Josephine Connolly elected member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District and Delroy Williams elected member in the House of Assembly for the Wheeland Electoral District.

“The basis of each of these challenges is that when each of the individuals made their section 50(1) Nomination Day declaration to the Supervisor of Elections for the 9th November 2012 General Election and the upcoming 22nd March 2013 by-election, a disqualification mentioned in section 49(1)(f) applied to each them in that each of them has a contract with the Government which, by that date, they had not given notice of to the Integrity Commission, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution. The type of contract in each case is a charge to secure the payment to the Crown of a “Belonger Discount” (applicable under the Crown Land Policy) in the event of a sale in prescribed circumstances.

“I have asked the Court to determine whether in each case, the individual is or is not qualified to be an elected member of the House considering the failure to give notice of the respective charges.

“The Constitution provides for a process for challenge in each of these cases in the public interest. If the Court determines that each member is disqualified then,

a) In the case of Ms. Missick, she will not be able to stand for election on 22nd March and the sole remaining candidate will be declared elected;

b) In the case of the members of the House of Assembly, their seats will be vacated and a by-election will have to be called. A decision on their disqualification would not prevent them from standing in a subsequent by-election called as a result.