ROSEAU, Dominica, Jun 13, CMC – A High Court judge has dismissed “without merit” a constitutional motion surrounding the appointment of a leader of the opposition in the current parliament of Dominica.
Burney Ryan, who was represented by a three-member legal team, led by former Trinidad and Tobago attorney general, Anand Ramlogan, had asked the High Court to determine ‘whether, in circumstances where there is occasion for the appointment of a Leader of the Opposition, after Senators have been appointed, and no elected member of the House of Assembly appears to command the support of the largest single group of members of the House who do not support the Government, the President is obliged to recognize and/or take into account the support of the Opposition Senators in determining who should be appointed as Leader of the Opposition.
He had also sought a ruling on whether the President was obliged to recognize and/or take into account the support of the four Senators who should be appointed Leader of the Opposition following the resignation of Jesma Paul-Victor.
But Senior Counsel, Anthony Astaphan, who headed a team of lawyers for the Attorney General, who was named as the defendant on Jn 6th January 2025, filed an application seeking an order that the claim be struck out.
Ryan had argued that in 2022, a snap election was held in which the main opposition United Workers Party (UWP) boycotted the polls on the basis alleging that electoral reform to facilitate free and fair elections in Dominica were not implemented.
The elections were won by the ruling Dominica Labour Party (DLP) with two independent candidates, Paul-Victor and Anthony Charles, winning the Salisbury and Marigot seats respectively.
Ryan said that there was no clear person to be appointed as opposition leader. However, the President was informed by letter dated 9th December 2022, cosigned by Paul-Victor and Charles of a power sharing arrangement whereby each, beginning with Paul-Victor, would hold the office of Leader of the Opposition for a period of 18 months and a further arrangement would be made for the balance of the parliamentary term.
He said that based on that arrangement Paul-Victor was sworn in as Leader of the Opposition on 20th December, 2022 and she then went on to appoint four senators.
He said consistent with the agreement, Paul-Victor resigned from the post of Leader of the Opposition with immediate effect on 20th June, 2024, making way for Charles to be appointed to the position.
But Ryan said that during Paul-Victor’s stint as Leader of the Opposition, Charles changed his political status and moved away from being an independent candidate and aligned himself with the United Progressive Party (UPP).
He said that by letter dated June, 20, 2024 the four Opposition Senators indicated their support for Paul-Victor to be recognized and appointed as Leader of the Opposition. The letter is also signed by Paul-Victor indicating her interest in re-appointment.
He said that the President had accepted the resignation of Paul-Victor and by letter dated 5th July, 2024, indicated her refusal to appoint Charles as the Leader of the Opposition on the basis that he does not command the support of the majority of members who do not support the Government.
As a result, the Dominica parliament has been and continues to be without a Leader of the Opposition following Paul-Victor’s resignation and the President’s refusal to make an appointment as “pleaded and supported by the Opposition Senators”.
But the defendant filed an application to strike out the motion on the grounds that there can be no issue of standing as the decision of the President is not reviewable and or justiciable.
Justice Zainab Jawara-Alami said that the grounds of the application submitted by the defendant were numerous “but I found that only two were relevant in the determination of the striking out application and they are; there is no pleaded basis in law or fact which discloses a viable or reasonable cause of action and; the claimant lacks standing to bring this claim”.
In her ruling, the judge stated that the failure to identify the constitutional provision alleged to have been breached, or to assert a “relevant interest” as required under Section 103, leaves the claim “deficient in both form and substance.”
She also explained that, “while mere technical defects in pleading may not always be fatal, particularly where constitutional issues are involved, a claim must, at a minimum, invoke the jurisdictional basis for the relief sought.
“This is especially critical where the claim is not one seeking private law remedies, but rather constitutional declarations against the State. The jurisdiction of the Court cannot be assumed in the absence of a properly pleaded constitutional foundation.”
In her ruling, the judge said the court finds that the claim fails at the threshold and accordingly finds that the claim against the defendants be struck out as it without merit, not properly invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 103 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
She said the issue of locus standi does not arise in the absence of a viable claim and that there shall be no order as to costs on the application.
CMC/cj/ir/2025