Dear Editor,
I wish to comment on your lead story, `CJ rules that house-to-house registration is legal’ (SN, August 15).
I refer to a quote from your article, “In a multi-prong ruling the judge [C.J. Roxane George-Wiltshire] also said that while [GECOM] as an independent body has the right to execute its mandate as it sees fit . . . . .”, I wish to say that no one is arguing with that prerogative of Gecom. However, the Judge must examine the who and how the decision for H2H registration was made. Gecom never met as a fully constituted body and voted; never had a tied vote that required Chairman Patterson to break the tie. Chairman Patterson’s signing an order to start H2H was improper and illegal. Chairman Patterson usurped powers that belonged to the whole Board. It violated the rules by which that body functions.
Therefore, in my opinion Judge George-Wiltshire should have ruled that H2H order signed by Patterson was illegal. It appears the who and how circumstances of the decision were not argued and examined in the case.
On the matter of Costs, the parties that brought this matter to court are not engaging in frivolities. They sought answers to burning and pivotal questions of law. No one knew the answers. So why the imposition of costs? No one deliberately went out of their way to waste the time of the Courts.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
