By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

OFFICIAL Opposition members of Parliament have taken legal action against the government over the recently tabled draft boundaries report, filing an application in the Supreme Court yesterday that seeks leave to begin judicial review proceedings of the draft order.

The plaintiffs, Montagu MP Richard Lightbourn and Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins, are represented by attorney Michael Scott. They argue in documents filed yesterday that the draft order tabled in the House of Assembly by Prime Minister Perry Christie last week should be declared void and that the 2012 order on constituency boundaries should be made extant, meaning applicable to the 2017 general election.

The men seek a favourable ruling based on three grounds: that the draft order has been tabled too late to be legal, that it represents egregious gerrymandering and that it seeks to add an additional constituency despite a nationwide pace of voter registration that is well below that of 2012.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to consider the constitutionality of a draft order that is based upon a report from the Constituencies Commission.

Mr Lightbourn and Dr Rollins hope their legal action will prompt House Speaker Dr Kendal Major to postpone parliamentary debate on the boundaries report, which is scheduled for today, until the judicial review application can be considered.

However, their request seeking that parliamentarians be legally restrained from debating the recommendations of the Constituencies Commission was not granted by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr Scott said Chief Justice Hartman Longley declined to hear arguments for the injunction because the plaintiffs’ application was filed too late on Tuesday.

The case will be heard before Justice Ian Winder. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning with the Office of the Attorney General expected to be served today.

There are fears that the application could be rendered redundant if Parliament debates the draft order and moves to pass it for gazetting today. The Tribune understands the two Free National Movement MPs will petition the Speaker when the House opens for business not to start any debate as they wish to raise a matter of national importance first to prevent the legislation being “railroaded” through.

The application for leave for judicial review filed by the plaintiffs argues: “The last draft order to be tabled in Parliament was on the 16th November 2011. Pursuant to Article 70, the commission shall in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, at intervals of not more than five years, review the number and boundaries of the constituencies into which the Bahamas is divided and shall submit to the governor general a single report either stating that in the opinion of the commission, no change is required, or recommending certain changes, and the Governor General shall cause such report to be laid before the House of Assembly forthwith.

“It, therefore, follows as a matter of constitutional principle that any report (and subsequent draft orders) must have been placed before the House of Assembly on or before November 16, 2016. The draft order is therefore out of time and is null and void. Any attempt by the government to rely on the report and subsequent draft order, in breach of the Constitution, is a decision taken by the government and as such is capable of being judicially reviewed.

“It further follows that given that there is no ambiguity under the Constitution as to the time limits to be observed, any attempt to pass the draft order and change the relevant boundaries should be judicially reviewed.”

Regarding gerrymandering, the plaintiffs argue that the proposed changes recommended by the Constituencies Commission is an attempt by the government to manipulate constituencies to its advantage ahead of the general election.

The application says: “The report recommends a change, for example, to the Montagu constituency, to be named Freetown which has been redrawn to take in an area which is stronghold for the Opposition party and which will materially promote the electoral prospects of the government’s candidate at the election. Quite apart from the breach of Article 70 stated above, this is clearly an attempt, at this late stage before an election, to manipulate the boundaries to suit the government’s purposes in advance of the election.”

With respect to the number of seats, the plaintiffs argue that a proposed additional seat is an attempt by the government to manipulate the electoral boundaries for its benefit.

“This cannot be correct procedure only three months before the election when barely 50 per cent of Bahamians entitled to vote have registered,” the application says.