Another Petition Against King Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by Administrator   
Wednesday, 04 April 2012 00:00

On Friday, March 30th, leave for an election petition against Hon. Mark King, Lake Independence Area Representative filed by Yolanda Shackron failed in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin. But that failure is not stopping the PUP from attempting again.

On Tuesday April 3rd, the PUP attempted again.  This time, it was Martin Galvez, Shackron’s brother and the person, who ran against King, is filing the application for leave for an election petition.Accordingto Galvez’s attorney, Lisa Shoman, and three affidavits she filed in court, King holds a contract with the government, which should disqualify him from holding office because he did not declare it by way of publishing such in a newspaper before running for office.

In a nutshell, the affidavits are those of Martin Galvez, who claims that it came to his attention that King held the contract and presented copies of them. There was also one by Henry Charles Usher, who claimed that he did research of all the newspapers and did not find that King had actually advertised his contract,, and a third affidavit by a process server identified as Marlon Clarke, who purportedly made searches at the companies registry.

In presenting his arguments, Senior Counsel Denys Barrow quickly punched gaping holes in the affidavits presented. For the Galvez affidavit, he pointed out that it was riddled with hearsay where Galvez said that “it came to his attention” that Mark King held a government contract but could not say who told him, if it was told to him “at the Battlefield Park” and whether it was “a street urchin”, who had told him that. This, said Barrow, was hearsay and was contrary to the Evidence Act which states that affidavits should not contain hearsay. He then moved on to an affidavit by Marlon Clarke, who signed a document on the 27th of March and did searches at the companies registry on the 28th, which was presented in the affidavit a day earlier. He called these “egregious violations of the Evidence Act” and they were “manifestly incapable of being accepted”.

Barrow then moved on to, at great lengths, to prove through case law that the Constitutional Section 58 1(h) should be construed as persons being disqualified are those who hold contracts of employment or are consultants or permanent workers with the government for and on behalf of the public service. He then went on to determine what the public service is and how it applied to this case.

In the end, Shoman agreed that the arguments by Barrow were a threshold that need to be crossed.