Alliance Says It’s Ready for Mediation with Shyne Barrow’s UDP  

The United Democratic Party (U.D.P.) is still struggling to mend fences, even with a general election likely before the end of the first quarter of the new year. The tension stems from recent comments by Albert Area Representative Tracy Taegar-Panton, who leads the Alliance for Democracy faction of the U.D.P. Her remarks didn’t sit well with Opposition Leader Shyne Barrow. On Friday, after a strategic meeting, Panton announced that the Alliance for Democracy would be fielding eighteen candidates for the embattled party. She also referred to Shyne Barrow as the former party leader, which Barrow’s attorney, Doctor Christopher Malcolm, says contradicts the High Court’s orders regarding the leadership dispute. Late this afternoon, the law office of Arnold and Company, representing Panton and the Alliance, shared a letter with the media. Dated January sixth, 2025, and addressed to the Registrar of the High Court, the letter indicates that the defendants, including Tracy Taegar-Panton and Phillipa Bailey, are agreeing to court-recommended and facilitated mediation. However, it’s unclear how the Alliance’s recent actions and Panton’s statements will impact the mediation process. Earlier today, we spoke with Doctor Malcolm about the latest legal developments.

 

Dr. Christopher Malcolm, Attorney-at-law

“We now have a matter which is before the court.  That court has made a number of orders, two in particular, so far in this matter and in one of them certainly the court confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at present and until there was a contrary order of the court, the legitimate leader of the U.D.P. is Moses “Shyne” Barrow and the executive with him is what is appropriate.  Now for anyone at all, reading what the court has said, to conclude until the court determines otherwise that there is any question of Barrow being a former leader of the party and so on, is plain wrong or a preparedness to be mischievous because the court has said clearly and, in fact, not only is it a question of being mischievous, it’s a case of them being contemptuous of the court and that is something that should not be countenanced by anyone.  I’m speaking as a lawyer, and I invite, quite frankly, the lawyer on the other side, Mr. Peter Knox, preeminent King’s Counsel out of England, or anyone else, to seek to refute anything that I’ve just said or to put aside that it is different from what I’ve given because the only thing I know how to do is to properly reflect what is and not to seek to be mischievous.  I’m not at all suggesting that counsel, certainly not Mr. Knox, or anyone else has been giving advice for there to be mischief.  But I’m saying that I’ve seen some very mischievous videos and postings that have been made which I think are plain wrong.  It is in circumstance where I’m saying that the court should be respected and people must really measure in the scale the way the respective parties have been behaving and then determine for themselves who has been most respectful of the process and who it is that has shown some level of humility and balance, which is necessary in the circumstances.”