Election queries to be heard behind closed doors

| 10/04/2017 | 22 Comments
Cayman News Service

Nickolas DaCosta (25) running against Moses Kirkconnell for CBWLC

(CNS Elections): Chief Justice Anthony Smellie will hear challenges this week to candidates nominated last month who may not be qualified, but the hearings will be behind closed doors. Supervisor of Elections Wesley Howell has raised questions about the eligibility of three candidates that he wants the courts to decide on. According to the court list, the hearings will be heard in the chambers of the country’s top judge starting Tuesday and continuing throughout the week, though the public is unlikely to be allowed in.

Cayman News Service

Mario Rankin

Mario Rankin, who is running for office in Newlands, appeared in Summary Court last week in an ongoing case relating to back payments he is making under court supervision to former unpaid workers. He is one of the three who have been challenged and CNS understands the challenge to his qualification relates to an alleged dishonesty conviction. Rankin appears to have been involved in a significant collision with a light pole in the early hours of Saturday morning in a car bearing his vanity plate, pictures of which were posted across social media.

Cayman News Service

Alric Lindsay

Local attorney Alric Lindsey, who was nominated to run in George Town South, is being challenged on the basis of his status and residency time before his nomination. Nickolas DaCosta, the youngest of all candidates, who is going up against Deputy Premier Moses Kirkconnell for the Cayman Brac West and Little Cayman seat, is being challenged on the basis that he is a US citizen and resident.

CNS contacted the Elections Office but Howell was unable to confirm details of the cases because they are now being handled by the Attorney General’s Office. The candidates involved have also been contacted and we are awaiting a response about how they feel about the challenges to their eligibility, which were reportedly raised by other candidates and voters. 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Candidates

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Why haven’t I heard of this free furniture? Have heard of caps and clothes but not furniture.

  2. Anonymous says:

    What a rush to try to scrub all the online information, hope we didn’t overlook anything.

  3. The Garden Of Eden says:

    I thought Tony said no queries were allowed?

  4. Anonymous says:

    It’s so disappointing to see another lawyer challenged on meeting the residency requirement. That is one reason I didn’t vote for Tara Rivers.

    Why can’t they respect the Constitution and wait 3 1/2 years?

    • Anonymous says:

      Because they think they are our saviours and we will not make it without them.

    • Anonymous says:

      Did you ever think that it’s because he thinks he has a strong case and doesn’t think that he falls into this category??! Alric is smart, so I’m sure he knew this would happen, but was prepared to fight it. Well obviously Tara won her case right, so I guess she knew her legal rights. Being a lawyer paid off for her, didn’t it? lol Here’s to wishing Alric all the best as I think he has a very strong case.

  5. Anonymous says:

    It seems as if the precedent has been set through Ms. Rivers’ case. The foreign passport/residency will be easier than Mr. Rankin’s. Mr. DaCosta has not resided in the US except for university days.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Election office should look into all that free furniture being given out on Brac. Buying votes is against the law too.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This headline is nonsense. Just because something is listed “in chambers” does not prevent the public or the press attending. Only something listed “in private” has that effect.

    CNS Note: Sadly experience tells us otherwise. If a case is open despite taking place in Chambers it will say “chambers as open court”. We will be attempting to enter the hearings anyway but so far no official can tell us whether we will or won’t be allowed in.

    • Jotnar says:

      There are legal arguments that chambers should be open, but there is no settled position on the point. Try and attend, but I suspect the usual position will be taken – you can attend if there are no objections, but if any of the parties do object, you will have to argue the entitlement as a point of law – good luck with that without a lawyer.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is a settled position and cases dealing with it. Unless the case falls within certain categories which are presumed to be in private, those categories not applying to these hearings, the strong presumption is that the public can attend and report on chambers hearings and the burden is on the party raising an objection to the public attending to show good cause why.

  8. Jotnar says:

    Why is the eligibility of someone purporting to represent the voters not a matter of legitimate public interest? Can think of few things more relevant to the public interest!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Overheard some comments in North Side the other day about dirty dealings with voters being removed from the register if they were known to support a certain candidate…may be Marl Road but court was mentioned too. I was not meant to hear the comments.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Zero confidence in our system to be able to follow the constitution and exclude these candidates.

  11. Italian plummer says:

    He’s a disgrace to the name.

  12. Anonymous says:

    The candidates will show up with QCs and the elections office will be a low level trainee most likely.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.