Table of Contents
01
of 03Constitutional Crisis Looms Over St. Lucia
Unitedpac St. Lucia – In a bold move underscoring the significance of constitutional fidelity, Hon. Allen Chastanet, the Parliamentary Leader of the Opposition in St. Lucia, has publicly aired his concerns regarding a potentially unconstitutional maneuver by the government. Chastanet’s apprehensions were formally articulated in an open letter to the Attorney General of St. Lucia, Hon. Leslie Mondesir, dated March 1, 2024. The crux of the matter involves the government’s intention to appoint an unelected individual as Deputy Speaker of the House, a decision that Chastanet argues may contravene the Constitution of St. Lucia.
The Opposition Leader’s concerns were precipitated by a recent amendment to Section 36 of the Constitution, intended to allow for the appointment of a person who is not a member of the House as Deputy Speaker. However, Chastanet notes that this amendment, in isolation, is insufficient for such an appointment to be constitutionally valid. He points out that Section 30 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment to the offices of Attorney General and Speaker and their recognition as members of the House, was not similarly amended to include the Deputy Speaker’s position.
02
of 03Open Letter
1st March, 2024
Honourable Leslie Mondesir
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
NIC Building Castries
Dear Sir,
At a recent sitting of the House of Parliament (the House), the Government amended the Constitution to require that when the office of Deputy Speaker of the House becomes vacant, a new Deputy Speaker must be appointed, “immediately or no later than the following sitting of the House”. In a press statement issued yesterday from the Office of the Prime Minister, it was reiterated that Section 36 of the Constitution was amended to allow a person who is not a member of the House to be elected to the position of Deputy Speaker. This is essentially the same provision as exists in relation to the Offices of the Speaker of the House and the Attorney General.
We have been advised that the amendment to Section 36 only, is insufficient to permit the Government to proceed with the filling of the vacancy in the Office of the Deputy Speaker, in the manner in which it proposes to. We are advised that Section 30 of the Constitution, the Supreme law of the land, MUST also be amended to allow for the appointment of a person who is not a member of the House to be recognized as a Member.
You would have noted that Section 30 makes provisions for a non-member who is selected/elected to be appointed to the offices of Attorney General and Speaker and to accordingly become Members of the House. However, Section 30 was never amended to permit such an appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker.
If our assessment is correct and the House must have a Deputy Speaker and as suggested in the press statement, that the Government intends to elect a non-member of the House as Deputy Speaker and Section 30 is not amended as required by law, then we humbly submit that the House will not be properly constituted and will in fact be unconstitutional. Given the imminent upcoming Budget and additional borrowings agenda which will require the attention of the House, this unresolved issue could create a legal quagmire and interrupt the operations and business of Government.
Should you agree with our observations and should the Government persist in the desire to select a nonmember of the house as the Deputy Speaker, then Section 30 MUST be amended. This will require a two thirds majority in both Houses AND a referendum. Should you not agree or should your office be unable to provide a satisfactory legal interpretation of the issue here-in-above stated and the Government proceeds to appoint a non-member as the Deputy Speaker, I reserve the right and will challenge the constitutionality of Parliament to conduct its business and of the intended appointment.
Out of an abundance of caution and to avoid this unnecessary uncertainty, the Attorney General has the authority to request a constitutional interpretation from the Court of Appeal. This is a matter of great public and constitutional importance which warrants your highest consideration. The public must be assured that the law making body and the government are seen to abide by the law of the land and not political expedience. Therefore, I seek your urgent response and appeal to your good office for a full and fair consideration of the matter. Should your legal opinion differ from that stated herein above, I seek your reference of the matter to the Court of Appeal for its opinion.
03
of 03Way Forward
Chastanet’s letter does not merely contest a procedural anomaly; it signals a deep-seated concern for the adherence to constitutional principles that underpin democratic governance. The Opposition Leader’s call for an urgent review and a potential constitutional interpretation by the Court of Appeal underscores the gravity of the situation. This incident brings to the forefront the critical balance between legislative innovations and constitutional mandates. As the Attorney General considers this pivotal matter, the outcome will undoubtedly have profound implications for the legislative.
