Court Never Reached Core of UDP’s Color Clash

Now, what Barrow filed wasn’t the actual case on the color issue. It was just the first step, an application for leave to seek judicial review. Think of it as asking the court for permission to argue the bigger question, who gets to wear red? That main issue never made it to a full hearing because the process didn’t go that far. Still, attorney Guerra explained that the color controversy was part of the arguments during this application stage.

 

Hector Guerra, Attorney-at-law

“That is something the judge squarely addressed in the judgement. It is not in dispute that there are two factions within the United Democratic Party. And that is recognized. Arguments were advanced in court that dealt specifically with the point you just raised, that you are not making it clear which political party individuals are voting for. But it is not disputed by Ms. Panton side that she is a part of the UDP. He did not have to make a ruling on those arguments, but I can tell you from being in court and leading the case on behalf of the Elections and Boundaries Commission that those arguments were canvased, advanced, but the judge said based on those tow preliminary points, which was the delay in prosecuting the claim and the fact that it was now moot, he did not have to go on and consider the substantive matter. That is because, when one commences judicial proceedings one has to first seek leave from the court and a part of seeking leave you then have to convince the court that you are not delayed in prosecuting a claim and that it is not an academic claim, there is a live issue, a list in law between the parties, an issue to be resolved by the court between the parties and that is no longer the case.”