18-18 election tie case

THE British Privy Council ruled yesterday that Prime Minister Patrick Manning did nothing wrong when he delayed calling another general election after the unprecedented 18-18 election tie of 2001.

The Law Lords considered Manning, whose conduct had been publicly stigmatised as unconstitutional, was entitled to be publicly vindicated. The Privy Council dismissed a judicial review case brought by two electors Florence Bobb and Girlie Moses and ordered that they pay costs to Manning.

In an 11-page judgment yesterday, the Privy Council found that Manning did everything constitutional to resolve a crisis in Trinidad and Tobago. The Privy Council comprised Lord Bingham, Hope, Carswell, Brown, and Mance.

In 2000, the UNC won the general elections 19-17. But in 2001, the UNC Government collapsed after three of its MPs Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Trevor Sudama and Ralph Maraj fell out with the party. The then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday was forced to call an election which ended in the unprecedented 18-18 tie.

Then President Arthur NR Robinson, acting in accordance with section 76(1) of the constitution, appointed Manning as Prime Minister on December 24, 2001. But Manning was unable to govern as the House of Representatives was unable to elect a Speaker on April 5 or 6, 2002. However, the Senate was able to elect a President and vice-President. According to Lord Bingham, there was a crisis in Trinidad and Tobago. Manning, at a Caricom meeting in Guyana on July 3, 2002, said if he could not elect a Speaker and/or pass a budget by October 31 that year, general elections would be held in TT.

Bobb and Girlie filed for judicial review on August 16, 2002. They wanted a declaration that the continuing decision of Manning to retain the office of Prime Minister after July 3, 2002, without causing a date for general elections to be fixed, was illegal. Secondly, they wanted a declaration that the decision of Manning to hold on to power up to October 31, 2002, was unreasonable and illegal.

Justice Mark Mohammed dismissed the application for leave on August 27, 2002. He said the women could not show that Manning had exceeded his constitutional authority. The women appealed, but the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justice Rolston Nelson and Justice Wendell Kangaloo, dismissed the appeal.

Bobb and Girlie decided to go to the Privy Council. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC travelled to London and argued the appeal in February this year.

But Lord Bingham said the two women could not point to any unlawful act of Manning between April 6 and the dissolution of Parliament on August 28, 2002. “No unlawful act was done, no unauthorised expenditure made,” Lord Bingham added.

He continued, “the appellants made the general complaint that the respondent had unlawfully retained power, but could point to no constitutional breach.” (See judgment in Section B - pages 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 27)