Attorney General Reginald Armour is claiming victory following Thursday's Privy Council ruling that Parliament was wrong for extending the term of incumbent local government councillors and aldermen. He strongly cautioned that any misrepresentation may be in contempt of the court.
Armour referred to the Privy Council's minority report of two judges against the majority ruling of three, and the overturned Court of Appeal ruling, to support his statements.
The Privy Council upheld UNC activist Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj's legal challenge against Government's extension of the term of incumbent local government representatives by a year.
The AG, at a media conference, however, said all of the judges had rejected the argument that there had been a breach of the Constitution by the amendments to increase the term from three to four years.
'Nevertheless, as a responsible government, this Government accepts this ruling of the majority of the board, which disagreed with the unanimous Court of Appeal ruling referred to in its interpretation of the amendments.'
He said it was worth emphasising that the Privy Council said the Government was not seeking to disenfranchise the rights of citizens to vote representatives into office.
'I emphasise this, because this decision is, of course, one with an undoubted political dimension, and there will be those who seek to misrepresent the decision that was handed down... in order to make political capital out of that decision. I suggest and caution that any misrepresentation of this judgment will be wrongly a misrepresentation that can border on contempt.
'So I urge all citizens to take the time to read the judgment carefully, and I would urge the media, particularly the print media, … I would recommend to the responsible media, print media, to publish this judgment in full as a pullout in the Sunday newspapers, so the citizens of this country can read this judgment at their leisure and not have to rely on misrepresentations of the judgment by those who would wish to misrepresent what it says to make political capital out of it.'
He said the legislation being interpreted by the Privy Council was passed by the Parliament.
'I don't accept that the interpretation of the Privy Council can be interpreted to mean that the decision speaks to an over-reach by the Government, because the legislation was passed by a vote of members of the Parliament, and the legislation is the will of the Parliament. I don't think there is anything in the judgment that says the Government usurped anyone's rights, I think they used language to the contrary.'
Armour said he had the decision under active consideration, in consultation with senior counsel, and would then give advice to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
Asked whether local government elections would be called due to the ruling, he said since the ruling had only been handed down three hours prior to the media conference and was still under consideration.
'The decision ultimately of when an election is to be called will be up
