Judge gives contempt of court ultimatum in PLP case
A judge in a Supreme Court case has ordered key members of the Progressive Labour Party to turn over critical documents in a case alleging ethical breaches within the party.
Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams attached a penal notice to the court order, outlining that failure to submit documents by Monday could result in contempt of court.
It came as part of a legal dispute regarding which members of the ruling party could vote in its leadership conference, which had been expected next month.
Kings Counsel Delroy Duncan, for the appellant, previously mentioned that the defendants failed to comply with orders to provide several requested documents.
Today, Mr Duncan underscored this problem once more after claiming the defence had again failed despite two previous calls for paperwork.
He said: “All I say is, we just want compliance with your order.
“We don’t want to be coercive, but we feel like we have no choice.”
Mr Duncan added: “This is the third time we’ve come before the courts to try and get compliance with your order.”
The dispute stemmed from a pair of addenda approved by the ruling party’s central committee during a meeting on August 24.
One addendum would keep those who openly campaigned against the party in the past two general elections from being automatically accepted as party members.
The second required people to have been members of the party for 12 months before qualifying to serve as delegates in leadership elections.
The addenda were passed during the party’s leadership race between Curtis Dickinson, a former Minister of Finance, and Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour.
Mr Dickinson, alongside four other party members, launched a legal action against the party’s chairwoman and its secretary-general.
They argued the changes breached PLP bylaws and constitution, and received an injunction to pause the changes until the case had been tried.
Mr Dickinson, who did not appear in court this morning, welcomed the penal notice, which he called a “significant step” in the proceedings.
He said: “Where orders of the Supreme Court have been made, they must be respected.
“As the Acting Chief Justice stated in the September 21 ruling, compliance with the court’s orders is mandatory and no person or entity is above the law.”
Mr Dickinson added: “The campaign needs to know what happened to those 373 members.
“It is not clear whether those individuals themselves are aware that they appeared on one list and subsequently did not appear on another.
“The campaign also remains concerned that there are many more documented individuals who do not appear on the membership list at all.
“The campaign has maintained that transparency, adherence to the party’s constitution and compliance with the court’s orders matter.
“Our campaign believes in protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring that every member is treated in accordance with the same rules.”
Mr Duncan said the PLP appeared to have 1,822 members who signed up between September 1, 2025 and August 31, 2026.
The PLP appeared to have 1,476 members as of the first affidavit, filed in the middle of this month, with 1,073 members “being asserted as the total membership”.
He explained that applicants were split up into three categories — those who were members of the party, those who were pending approval and those who were removed.
Mr Duncan said there were about 403 people who were awaiting verification.
However, he added there were 373 people who were initially confirmed members that seem to have been removed from the membership list and not given to the appellants.
He explained: “They’ve implemented a new verification process and culled 373 members in a process that we advocate we were never even notified — and without any explanation.
“They have now reduced the number of potential delegates that can be involved in this process.”
Mr Duncan further said he had requested a complete list of individuals who became members of the party between September 1, 2025 and August 31, 2026.
However, he said the defendants failed to do so — something Mr Duncan said was a breach of the court’s previous orders.
Mr Duncan added: “If there is any doubt about what your order is, there’s nothing wrong with filing a summons, coming back before court and seeking clarification.
“This make it quite clear that you’re not supposed to put your own interpretation and make a determination potentially disadvantaging another party in the proceedings.
“That is what they have done, we say.
“What they are doing is, in every instance, making a determination of what they think the order is.”
Mr Duncan requested the full membership list, as well as the names of every applicant in the list who could not be verified but had been left off the list.
He asked that they be identified through a colour-coding system.
Mr Duncan further asked the names of the 409 applicants awaiting verification, also to be identified by colour code.
He requested that the defendants offer all their information by 4pm on Monday through a scanned PDF.
Mrs Justice Subair Williams previously said that the plaintiffs were entitled to several documents, including a full text of the membership process and a full list of the present members of the PLP in the 12 past months.
She had further struck out two defence affidavits in their entirety and portions of a third that made reference to allegations of “membership manipulation, membership fraud and/or error”, as this had no relevance to the proceedings.
The matter is listed for trial on October 1 and 2.
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
