A legal dispute over Progressive Labour Party membership that could determine the future of the party’s leadership returned to the Supreme Court today for legal arguments.

Addressing a courtroom full of party officials and supporters, Delroy Duncan KC, representing leadership contender and former finance minister Curtis Dickinson, said that only two issues remained in contention: the verification of members, and whether the party leadership could make retroactive decisions about accepted members.

Mr Duncan argued that verification procedures put in place by the party were “void” and, while the party could make moves to update its membership approval process, it should be required to go back to the court if such decisions would affect the rights of those who joined on or before August 31.

Mark Pettingill, who represents Dawn Simmons, the chairwoman of the PLP, and Patricia Basden, the party’s secretary-general, will respond to the arguments tomorrow.

Zane DeSilva, the party’s deputy leader, was among those who observed the proceedings, while others including David Burt, the Premier, Lindsay Simmons, PLP senator, and Wayne Furbert, PLP MP, spent time in the chamber.

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.

Both sides have said they sought to have the matter resolved outside of the courts, but discussions failed to bear fruit.

Mr Duncan told the court that the majority of issues brought forward had already been conceded. The two principal issues that remained in dispute were the verification process of members and retroactivity of decisions that affect the rights of members.

He said that, based on evidence before the court, the written verification process was only produced on September 22 and that prior to May 2026 prospective members were only called when their forms were incomplete to confirm details.

Mr Duncan said that the verification process was never formally approved by any body empowered under the constitution to do so, and as a result the process was void.

He said: “The guide is a step not found in the constitution or the lawful membership process.”

Mr Duncan also said those who applied for membership were not given any notice of the new verification procedures.

While he noted PLP officials had cited “extraordinary circumstances” in their decision to make the changes, variations of the rules needed to be handled through the proper means or it could allow a majority group to disenfranchise minority groups within the organisation.

Mr Duncan added: “That is the danger of not just following the rules.”

He also said that the orders sought by his clients would not infringe on the powers of the PLP to establish its own rules, stating that addenda similar to that put forward in August could still be advanced.

However, under the proposed orders, the party would need to go to the courts if such orders were to have retroactive effect and potentially remove “crystallised” rights from members.

Mr Duncan said that the court had heard once an application form was properly submitted and payment received by the PLP, the applicants became members.

He said: “If you become a member and also happen to have affiliations that are inconsistent with the party, you get disciplined.”

Mr Duncan said that four of his clients had signed up to the party because they wanted to have the opportunity to take part in the leadership election as was permitted under the party rules.

He said: “It's a matter of basic fundamental rights. When you sign up, you get what you bargain for.”

Mr Duncan also argued that his clients were entitled to costs for the issues that had already conceded, noting that the defendants had been given a neutral legal opinion on August 27 but elected to ignore it.

“That opinion says exactly what we are saying today,” he said. “Nothing more, nothing less. Had that opinion been considered, we would not be here.”

• 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