High Court Ruling Shakes Up U.D.P. Leadership Battle

After months of legal wrangling, the High Court has delivered a decisive blow in the United Democratic Party’s leadership saga. The court ruled that the expulsion of Albert Area Representative Tracy Taegar-Panton from the U.D.P. in August 2024 was unlawful. Additionally, the court found that the Unity Convention held by the Alliance for Democracy faction in October 2024 was not a national convention, rendering its decisions non-binding. This ruling comes after Shyne Barrow, the former opposition leader, challenged the validity of the convention and its outcomes. The controversy led to two competing slates of U.D.P. candidates in the March twelfth general election, resulting in the party retaining five seats in the House of Representatives. Notably, Barrow lost his seat in Mesopotamia. The decision is a significant setback for Opposition Leader Tracy Taegar-Panton, who has been referring to herself as the U.D.P. party leader. As the dust settles, Barrow shared his reaction with reporters this afternoon, marking another twist in the ongoing political drama.

 

Shyne Barrow, Claimant

“Very emotional, very grateful. Grateful to Professor Christopher Malcolm, Imanuel Williams, the entire team that worked on this case, all the supporters, all the UDP supporters that were heartbroken as to what was done to the party by those people who engaged in fraud and deception. And all along, I kept saying to everyone, I kept saying to the media that these people were not the United Democratic Party. They had no basis upon which to make those claims to the legitimacy of October twentieth, and I am very grateful that Justice Hondora saw things our way.”

 

Reporter

“So, what happens next?”

 

Shyne Barrow

“Well, we will continue with the rebuilding of the party. I know that the PR officer put out a release yesterday talking about constitutional reform because our constitution needs to be strengthened. Even though the ruling from the judge makes clear that October twentieth was invalid, there are many procedural inconsistencies, gaps, loopholes that need to be closed, ambiguities that need to be clarified so that we never even approach the type of catastrophes that we had with all of these geniuses, political geniuses and constitutional experts interpreting the constitution to their favor. What they did was corrupt, the height of corruption. But this is what I was fighting against for my political career.”