PLP: ‘Our door remains open’
The Progressive Labour Party has said that Curtis Dickinson has been “unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue” as a dispute over membership changes continues.
In a statement issued tonight, the party said that it had sought to resolve the matter by agreeing to all of the requested orders, but said Mr Dickinson had “increased his targeted attack” and was seeking a political result through the courts.
The statement said: “What is now being asked threatens the PLP’s ability to govern itself.
“It also means more time in court, more cost to our members and more uncertainty as our Annual General Conference approaches.
“The party will attend court on Thursday and Friday. Two volunteer officers will again carry that burden on the party’s behalf.
“We respect the court and we will set out our position there, respectfully and fully.
“We remain hopeful that the court will recognise that the future of the party belongs to its members.
“Our door remains open. We would still rather resolve our differences at our own table.”
The dispute initially rose after two changes to the party’s membership and delegate process were put forward and approved at an August 24 central committee meeting.
The first proposal would prevent those who have publicly campaigned against the party in the past two general elections from automatically becoming members.
A second meant that people who were party members for less than a year would be ineligible to act as delegates at the upcoming conference and election.
Mr Dickinson, who is running against Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, to become the next party leader, argued that the process by which the changes were approved went against the party constitution.
The PLP said on Monday that it had agreed to drop the two disputed motions and invited Mr Dickinson to sign a consent order to close the matter.
However, Mr Dickinson said that significant questions remain regarding the verification process and the status of newly signed-on members.
He said in a statement: “The appropriate forum to secure clarity and finality is now the Supreme Court. A formal resolution ensures that these questions cannot simply arise again under a different process or interpretation.”
The PLP said in its response that while it had sought to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution, Mr Dickinson had brought penal threats against Dawn Simmons, the party chairwoman and secretary-general.
The party said: “Rather than a prolonged court case between members of our own party, we chose not to argue further.
“We recognised that the legal costs could financially cripple our party, wiping out the years of hard work by our many dedicated volunteers.
“This reality was compounded by Mr Dickinson determination to go after the party for his legal costs.”
The party said the PLP decided to agree to every order Mr Dickinson and the other plaintiffs had asked for, accepting that the central committee was not the right place to decide the motions.
However, they said the plaintiffs were now seeking declarations from the court to restrict future decisions about party membership.
The party said: “They are asking the court to declare, in advance, that certain decisions about the party’s membership can never be made, even by the party’s delegates voting to amend the constitution through its own proper process.”
The statement said the original claim expressly stated that nothing in it would prevent the party from deliberating on the matter or amending its constitution, which is why it agreed to the plaintiff’s claim in full.
The party statement added: “The party, and its members through their delegates, must still have the right to decide their shared future. That right belongs to every PLP member.
“It is not ours to give away, and it should not be taken away by a court order sought after the party had already stepped back.
“With this action, Mr Dickinson is seeking a political result through the court process, rather than a democratic one through the party’s delegates.”
• 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
