In a significant judicial development, former Dominican Prime Minister Edison James has secured a landmark High Court ruling affirming the violation of his constitutional rights by Magistrate Michael Laudat. The case stemmed from James’ incarceration without a bail hearing during ongoing legal proceedings against opposition figures.
The 80-year-old statesman, who led Dominica from 1995 to 2000, is currently facing incitement charges alongside United Workers Party (UWP) leaders Lennox Linton and Dr. Thomson Fontaine. The allegations concern events dating back to February 7, 2017, when prosecutors claim James encouraged actions potentially endangering public peace following demands for Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s resignation.
During Friday’s proceedings, Magistrate Laudat ordered James detained pending possible bail consideration, resulting in his temporary placement in a holding cell at Roseau’s Magistrate’s Court. This action prompted the immediate constitutional challenge that led to the High Court’s intervention.
James emphasized the principle-driven nature of his legal battle, stating, ‘This matter was never about monetary compensation but rather the fundamental protection of citizens’ rights. The law explicitly provides for bail consideration before deprivation of liberty, a right that was disregarded in my case.’
The former prime minister expressed concern over judicial overreach, noting that the ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s obligation to uphold constitutional protections. ‘When judicial officers violate citizens’ rights, it not only causes individual harm but imposes significant costs on the state apparatus,’ James observed.
Beyond the immediate legal context, James connected the case to broader governance issues, referencing ongoing debates about development projects including the controversial new airport initiative. He stressed that all governmental actions must operate within legal frameworks with appropriate public consultation.
James was represented by Queen’s Counsel Thomas in the High Court proceedings, with Attorney Gildon Richards handling the magistrate’s court case. The legal team successfully argued that the detention without bail consideration constituted a fundamental rights violation.
In a related development, James addressed separate ongoing litigation regarding quarry operations near his Korsha property. Having previously obtained an interim order limiting operational hours of a crushing plant due to residential disruption, James has now filed for judicial notice of a newly installed crusher in Stonefield that contradicts claims about the Korsha facility’s uniqueness.
‘This action seeks not to impede development but to mitigate the nuisance of industrial operations immediately adjacent to residential property,’ James clarified. ‘We await the court’s determination on achieving reasonable balance between development and residential rights.’