Belize - Belize News - Channel5Belize.com - Great Belize Productions - Belize Breaking News
Home » Featured, Trials » Penner Petition takes another turn in Court
May 15, 2012

Penner Petition takes another turn in Court

Rodwell Williams

In Monday’s newscast we reported on an election petition by Orlando Habet against returning Cayo North area representative Elvin Penner on the refusal of a recount of ballots. The case took another turn today when lawyers from both sides were back in court. Arguments were heard on whether the procedure used by attorneys Said Musa and Anthony Sylvestre on behalf of Habet was flawed. Attorney Rodwell Williams argued that the matter should be struck out on the basis of non-compliance and an abuse of process. Williams submitted that after a petition on allegations of bribery was struck out on April tenth, Musa and Sylvestre relied on the same supporting documents when they filed a petition on the recount. Williams contends that the documents are, therefore, null and void.

 

Rodwell Williams, Attorney

“Is the same petition that the court struck out, which petition is also dated second of April, the court struck it out on the tenth of April and turn around and gave them leave to present a true petition.  Instead of doing that, incidentally the court also ordered that the registry be kept opened late to facilitate their filing. Instead of doing that, they cut, paste and jam up papers together and presented the same petition dated the second of April—which the court just struck out—and the same two affidavit dated thirtieth of March even before the petition of the second of April came into being. So they filed those same documents once more. That in our view make those documents a nullity because the court, when it gave the leave on the tenth, you can’t have a petition predating the date of your leave. You are giving leave to file one, to swear one and you can’t therefore file and swear one which existed before you get leave; that makes it a nullity.”

 

Alfonso Noble

“Is this sloppy legal work?”

 

Rodwell Williams

“I am not the author of it so I would not want to categorize it—others or the authors of that work and you will have to draw your own conclusion—but certainly in my view it was an abuse of the court’s process to have put that document before the court especially in the circumstances when after the court give you an opportunity by holding open the registry beyond the usual time to allow you to present a true petition—not a petition that the court struck out that same day and not a petition that is sworn on the second of April before you get leave, not an affidavit that is sworn before the petition exists on the thirtieth of March and put that before the court. In my view that is a nullity; that has to be treated as though it had never happened. Therefore, it means that the twenty-one day expired and you have nothing before the court to commence the election petition process.  They filed a petition dated the second of April at the time of the filing of the application and they did that allegedly because they weren’t sure of the time. That petition was one that was filed—whether you call it an exhibit or they call it whatever they call it—that was a petition signed, sworn, swearing supporting affidavit and that petition was filed without leave. That makes it bad. The court actually strike it out and I record the records of the court saying this is where you struck it out. They brought back the same document; ipsissima verba and therefore it should go by the same way.  The case will turn on whether the court accepts the submission on whether it is a nullity. If it is a nullity, then it means there is no petition. it is a nullity; it has to be treated or ought to be treated as though it was never in existence or filed.”

 

Be Sociable, Share!


Viewers please note: This Internet newscast is a verbatim transcript of our evening television newscast. Where speakers use Kriol, we attempt to faithfully reproduce the quotes using a standard spelling system.

Advertise Here

5 Responses for “Penner Petition takes another turn in Court”

  1. Rod says:

    Why was Rodwell targeted to be shot this information has never come out because one assailant was killed before the trial what is the reason that he was shot inquiring minds want to know.

  2. Retired CEO says:

    Simply, tricky, widthwise, wicked, witty and downright slick. In short Rodwell is demonstrating a very subtle show of witticism, coupled with demagogism while demonizing the legal art in a democracy. In plain ol English this is the behavior of an evil person.

  3. Sasha says:

    Bribery in elections is nothing new, how comes they talking about it now, I know everyone wants to be in power to HELP THEMSELVES. NO REVOTE, NO RECOUNT.

  4. CEO says:

    Rod you are like a scratched recod now!

    If you know why he was shot then say so; if you don’t know why he was shot then do some home work and let the rest of us know. Until then can you quit singing the same Sanky?

  5. O says:

    I agree CEO right now he’s way off topic

Leave a Reply

CAPTCHA Image
*