PLP resolves court battle over leadership contest
The Progressive Labour Party has agreed to drop two disputed motions approved last month by its central committee that prompted an injunction in the Supreme Court.
The moves would have affected the selection process for the ruling party’s new leader, which was set for next month when David Burt, the Premier, was to step down.
One motion would prevent people who had publicly campaigned against the party in the past two General Elections from being automatically accepted as party members.
The second would require people to be members of the party for a full year before becoming eligible to serve as delegates in party leadership elections.
It was disputed by Curtis Dickinson, the former Minister of Finance, who is running for leadership along with Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour.
The party has invited the plaintiffs to sign a consent order so that the court can swiftly close the matter.
A party statement said: “This afternoon, the Progressive Labour Party filed a notice with the Supreme Court that brings to a resolution the case brought by five of its members over two motions passed by the central committee on 24 August 2026.
“In that notice, the party has consented to every order the plaintiffs asked the court to make, in the terms they themselves drafted.
“All that remains is for the court to make the final order to bring the proceedings to a close, and we have asked for that to happen as soon as possible.”
It added: “There is nothing left to argue. We have invited the plaintiffs to sign a consent order so that the court can close the matter quickly.
“We hope they will, and that when the court next sits, it will be simply to bring these proceedings to an end, so that our members, our volunteers and our party can move forward together.”
The party made clear that the resolution does not decide what its rules should be, only, rather, where those rules must be made.
It said the resolution did not equate to the party agreeing with the plaintiff’s reading of the constitution.
The party added: “The terms we have agreed to, which were proposed by the plaintiffs themselves, expressly preserve the party’s right to hold future meetings, deliberate on these questions and amend its constitution through the proper process.
“The scope of the central committee’s authority, the conditions of membership and delegate eligibility, matters affecting future conferences and anything else the party chooses can now go before the delegates, at a special delegates conference or the annual general conference.”
“If the delegates believe the central committee should have the authority it exercised, they are free to say so, and to write it into our constitution.”
The party said it could have chosen to fight on but decided against it, given the “financial, reputational and personal” toll the proceedings had taken on volunteer officers who could face imprisonment, fines or seizure of their assets.
That toll, the party said was “no longer one we were willing to ask our members to bear”.
Delroy Duncan, representing the plaintiffs, has been approached for a response.
The PLP has also been asked whether it intends to hold a special delegates meeting ahead of the annual general conference which must take pace before November 15.
• To read the statement in full, see Related Media
• 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
