Legal solution the best option

Either the Government enacts legislation to determine who holds executive authority in the event of a tie or the court is asked by either side to interpret the provisions of the law.

The shambolic nature of Thursday’s swearing-in ceremony underlines the need for a more orderly approach. It is not correct for the caretaker chairman to overreach his roles and functions. We make no finding as to whether this has occurred, but note that an argument can be made stating that chairman Terry Rondon went too far.

Equally, it is not acceptable for UNC representatives to leave their constituents unrepresented on the basis of their own private views of the legality of the meeting.

The UNC’s walkout — a fourth for the party in recent months — was prompted when caretaker chairman Rondon sought to exercise a “second vote”, something which would ostensibly have the effect of a casting vote and would break the deadlock that arose after electors gave an equal number of seats to both the PNM and UNC.

The UNC described Thursday’s events as an “act of thuggery” by the Government, which was a gross exaggeration of the conduct of the PNM officials named.

At the same time, it is true that it would have been far more advisable for Rondon and his party to err on the side of caution, to allow a motion calling for legal advice to be put forward and possibly widened so as to include all the officials around the table.

PNM chairman Franklyn Khan, the day after the local government election, publicly hinted at the possibility of legislative action being undertaken to break the tie — which means the party at that stage was of the view that the law had a gap. If that view has since changed due to subsequent legal advice, that is no reason to not defer to judges.

The fact that the position has shifted is itself a good reason why the Supreme Court should be called upon to deliberate.

The State should file a request for the High Court to interpret the law as it stands.

If the court finds a gap that cannot be cured by interpretation, a bill should be tabled in Parliament fixing the problem.

To ride roughshod over all of the uncertainties, pretending as though there is no issue of interpretation — of both the letter and the spirit of the law — is to do a disservice not only to the Sangre Grande community but the entire nation, a nation premised on the rule of law. It cannot be a case of one party’s untested interpretation of the law prevailing over the will of officials duly elected by the people.

None of this is to ignore the fact that Section 15 (2) of the Act clearly states: “Unless the mayor resigns or ceases to be qualified or becomes disqualified or is removed from office in accordance with this Act, he shall continue in office until his successor in office has accepted office and has made and subscribed the appropriate declaration.” Rather, the argument being advanced is that it is for a judge or a panel of judges to rule on this, not lawyers hired by the PNM or UNC.

Meanwhile, we again ask why this situation was allowed to develop in the first place. The Elections and Boundaries Commission should urgently review its boundaries for all of the corporations that have an even number of seats. (Incredibly, even after the infamous 18-18 tie of 2001, about half of them do.) For now we call on all members of the corporation to work together for the people of Sangre Grande.

The best way to do this is to place the question of the governance of the council in the hands of impartial adjudicators trained in law: judges.