TKOs in the political arena

Ken Jones, Contributor

The People's National Party's (PNP) attempt to extract a toothsome victory from the jaws of election defeat is as unusual as it is unworthy. Many a politician has had his/her seat made vacant because a recount of the valid votes identified a different winner. However, for a party's nominee to claim a seat after being overwhelmingly rejected by the electors is something else. It is an old-time political stratagem that should be frowned upon by the present generation.

The shameless hunger for representational rights is made more obnoxious by the refusal to face the polls in a by-election called to determine legitimacy. The argument that the election date was called too soon suggests that the present day PNP leaders put their own interests before that of the people who need representation. For them it is quite okay to keep the seat vacant for six months while they try to get it without the casting of a vote.

This is in contrast with the views of Norman Manley, the revered founding president of the party. When two Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) members of the House were unseated by election petitions, they took the case all the way to the Privy Council. This took time and Premier Manley, opposed to taxation without representation, declared, "... just as no Government would wish to accelerate a by-election while there is a pending appeal, so no Government could allow a constituency to remain unrepresented whilst an appellant pursued dilatory tactics." This notion stands rejected by some of those who are sheltering behind the armor of his legacy.

Personal motives

The ugly aspects of the dual-citizenship debate are beginning to become exposed. What began as a mission to oust members of parliament popularly elected, but in breach of a constitutional fiat, now turns out to be more of an obsession fuelled by personal motives, a craving for power and a wish to win by default. Were it truly a case of pure respect for the law, the petitioners would have retired from the fray once the objective of the Constitution was achieved. But no! The real intention is to frustrate the will of the people and to regain power by whatever means necessary. Having contested and lost all three of the re-run elections, they haven't now the nerve for a fourth challenge. Still, their palms are itching for the prize and the winner's wreath.

Attempting to get into Parliament on a technicality is the way of old-fashioned politicians. The PNP's revival of the practice began with the case against Daryl Vaz, but it was evident as far back as 1944, when it was hoped that the leader of the JLP would have been barred from the House because he had not formally changed his name from Clarke to Bustamante. Busta got wind of the plan and did the legal thing in time to avoid a technical knockout.

In 1967, when the JLP won 33 of the 53 seats in the House, the PNP launched 11 petitions which, had they won, would have changed the hand of power. In those days, lawyers in the party advised that "... there was a powerful case for saying that the Election Law was not in accordance with the Constitution which is the Supreme law in Jamaica".

Sounds familiar?

In 1950, when Rupert Wilmot won the South West St Ann seat for the PNP, he was unseated by a petition brought against him by the JLP's Gideon Aabuthnot-Gallimore. Wilmot had won the seat by a comfortable majority but forgot to declare at nomination that he had business with the State, to wit: leasing a plot of land to Government for livestock improvement. In the by-election that followed, the electors voted again in favour of Wilmot. Incidentally, like Bustamante, Mr Gallimore had changed his surname; but only just before the election, so that his name would be the first on the alphabetically listed ballot paper.

Before becoming the first Speaker of the House under Adult Suffrage Gordon Veitch had been the elected representative for Hanover in the Legislative Council. He won that seat in 1935, and then found himself faced with a petition brought by Thomas Junor claiming that he was the only true candidate, since Veitch was not qualified at the nomination. It wasn't dual citizenship then. According to Junor, Veitch's salary as a preacher was below the required £300 a year, and, therefore, his election should be declared null and void.

Onus of proof

After much legal wrangling, Junor and his lawyer were unable to prove the amount of Veitch's income. They tried to put the onus of proof on him, but the defendant's attorney, Mr Braithwaite, told the court: "The law gives no one the right to bring up a person elected by the people and subject him to a form of inquisitorial examination as to his income. It may be very desirable that before a man can be accepted as a candidate, he ought to satisfy some officer on such a point, but the law gives no private citizen the right to subject a candidate to a general inquisitorial examination. I do think I should not be called upon really just to accommodate my learned friend and waste the time of the court." The judge agreed and dismissed the case, with costs against the petitioner.

Of course, Jamaica has no monopoly on election frivolity. Just a few years ago in Chicago, petitioners asked to have a candidate removed from the ballot because it was alleged his nomination papers were not bound together in accordance with the law. At the hearing, the accused responded that his papers had in fact been tied with a shoe lace; and under cross examination he pulled from his pocket a blue shoe lace which he said was the mate of the one used at nomination.

As luck would have it, an election clerk stepped up and testified that on nomination day, he had cut the shoe lace that tied the papers. But, of course! Talk about coincidence: as more luck would have it, the alert official had managed to keep and was able to produce the very piece of lace that he had cut. With that story, the candidate was allowed to remain on the list and went on to win. However, it is said that to this day, the petitioners believe that the lace proffered by the election clerk, although of the same colour, was shorter and a trifle thinner than that presented by the candidate.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.