Shyne and Tracy Weigh in on Possibility of Mending the UDP

The United Democratic Party is heading back to mediation, this time with the High Court facilitating the process. As we reported on Monday, a letter was sent to the Registrar of the High Court, informing her of the Alliance for Democracy’s intention to resolve their internal dispute with Shyne Barrow. But will it work, given that both sides remain steadfast in their positions? Tracy Taegar-Panton and the Alliance for Democracy movement aren’t considering a coalition, as they firmly see themselves as members of the U.D.P. On the other hand, Shyne Barrow has proposed various options to unify the party, but one of his conditions is that Tracy Taegar-Panton stops calling herself the party leader. Tonight, we’ll bring you the latest from both factions and their perspectives on whether mediation can actually succeed under these circumstances.

 

Isani Cayetano

“For the better part of last year there was a very strong bucking of heads between Shyne Barrow and yourself where leadership of the United Democratic Party is concerned.  How do you see this mediation process working out if, for instance, you’re not budging from your position post October twentieth, and he is saying, “Look, the court is saying everything reverts back to status quo ante October twentieth.”

 

Tracy Taegar-Panton, Area Representative, Albert

“Where does the court say that?  That’s not what I read in the interim, the order that came out after the interim injunction.  The court does not make that declaration.  The court cannot prejudice a case that it has not heard.  So, the court could not, the court dealt with one matter in that injunction and that matter had to do with the use of the headquarters, access to the headquarters in particular and use of the party organs for the work of the party.  It said nothing else.  There is a substantial matter before the court that has not yet been determined, has not been heard and in no court anywhere in the Commonwealth jurisdiction will a court prejudice itself before hearing the matters at hand.”

 

Isani Cayetano

“So where does that put you in terms of the mediation process?  You made certain pronouncements on Friday in another area of the media where Mr. Barrow and his attorney are essentially saying, “Look, what you are doing is essentially contravening what the High Court has ordered.”  That’s their position.”

 

Tracy Taegar-Panton

“But where does it say that?  So, you know, to say one thing and to look, and I invite the members of the local media, look at Claim Six-sixty and look at the judgment, if you will, that came out after that and read it for yourselves because the court did not say anything other than the use of the building and the party assets.”