One UDP Constitution, Different Interpretations

In the lead-up to the October twentieth Unity Convention, both factions of the U.D.P., including the Alliance for Democracy, cited the party’s constitution, each interpreting it to bolster their own stance. Interestingly, neither side sought a judicial review of the U.D.P. constitution. Here’s Barrow’s response to this observation.

 

Isani Cayetano

“The alliance has quoted one aspect of the constitution that essentially empowers them and you, as the Leader of the United Democratic Party up until perhaps the twentieth of October, also cited the UDP constitution to bolster your position as well.  But no has decided to take the matter before the court for a proper reading of what the constitution actually says.”

 

Shyne Barrow, Leader of the Opposition

“And so, I reject you saying up until the twentieth because before the twentieth there was no controversy as to my leadership.  Now you accept that this is controversial and contentious, but as far as the country knows, myself, Hugo Patt, Michael Peyrefitte, Alberto August, we are the duly elected leaders of the party.  This event that took place October twentieth had no sanction, but now you say, why didn’t we stop them or try to get an injunction from them using the name UDP.  I think that would have been the only remedy because we can’t stop people from gathering, we can stop people from using the name.”

 

Isani Cayetano

“To be specific, I am citing that portion of the constitution that speaks to the delegates forming and having a vote based on the fact that they may not necessarily be satisfied with any part of one’s leadership or satisfied with the direction in which the executive may be headed.”

 

Shyne Barrow

“Well here is the thing, what we are seeing from the Alliance for Democracy Party is not the breath of fresh air, is not the renewed or rebirth of democracy and ideologies strengthen our nation.”