The fundamental issues are not whether the members resigned on their own or were influenced by someone BUT THE REASONS WHY THE MEMBERS RESIGNED.  The Governor General MUST considers the REASONS.  If the reasons are sound then whether MR. BRANTLEY DID or DID NOT ASK for their resignation he still has the legal and constitutional right to nominate the required number of members.

It clear that the remaining members are of the view that this is an opportunity to DO AS THEY WISH OR AS DENZIL DOUGLAS WISHES.  Lawyer Anthony Astaphan is openly suggesting to the press and the public that the Commission can continue, Mark Brantley not having the right to nominate two new members.  Anthony Astaphan is wrong and anyone who follows him will be misled.  Frankly Anthony Astaphan is ignoring the law for the sake of politics.  However, he has not yet won any case against the PAM.  He is now the mot successful LOSER while the hard working citizens cannot get a salary increase to cope with the high and increasing cost of living.

As far as Anthony Astaphan is concerned he is collecting a fat pay check, the social stability and image of St. Kitts can go to hell.  The National Debt is not his concern; he is not suffering from it.

Until the reasons given by Messers Amory and Perkins are put to the test and proven to be weak, they appear to be valid.  Very notably Dr. Kenny Anthony, lawyer to the Commission advised the men that the 2001 census date is not adequate. 

In terms of REASONS, what if the two members had their lives threatened in order to force them to vote along with Liburd and Martin?  What if they were offered bribes?  According to the reasoning and obvious bias of some people it should be business as usual the remaining members simply continuing and making a decision.  Anybody with commonsense can appreciate that this is an untenable and unacceptable position.  Be it Astaphan, the Governor General or the Attorney General the REASONS cannot be ignored.

This is the situation which the Governor General has to weigh very honestly and states-manly.  Even before the Governor General had the chance to evaluate the REASONS, Lawyer Astaphan is telling the public that the CCM members are set on making political mischief, pulling political stunts.  It is very obvious that Lawyer Anthony Astaphan does not understand the political history of this country.

The Honourable Governor General has already had his position smeared.  In the contempt of Court case the Governor General has been named as one of the persons who has to pay the legal cost.  The Governor was dragged into the mess created by Denzil Douglas.

According to the news Dennis Merchant who was found in contempt of Court is the legal officer who is responding to Mark Brantley essentially telling him that he has no right to nominate two new members.  After calling for Dr. Merchant’s resignation this seems like a deliberate insult to Mr. Brantley.  In fact Dr. Merchant should not be writing any such letter to anyone.  He has already compromised and smeared the office of the Attorney General or Minister of Justice.

Dr. Merchant has already shown that he will ignore his legal training and go belly up to the wishes of Denzil Douglas.  The Governor General is being extremely careless to be taking legal advice from Dr. Merchant or having Dr. Merchant make any legal response for him.  If by virtue of his years and education the Governor uses his wisdom he should demand INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE, and investigate into the reasons why Mr. Anthony and Mr. Perkins resigned.  Also he should not listen to Lawyer Anthony Astaphan, and be cautious about his image, his position.

There is an important question which must be answered because there is the need for an investigation.  Once again the question arises, who is the external influence?  Indeed this investigation should be done before there is any advance in the process.  If the Governor will ultimately sign the document then he should make a conscientious effort to know of exactly what he is signing.  The leader of the Opposition has the legal and Constitutional right to ask for an investigation prior to nominating another two members.  He has the right to seek clarity before he nominates another two members.  He has the right to be satisfied of knowing what conditions he is asking the nominees to serve.

As it stands the remaining members in their misguided and subservient state are proceeding in indecent haste to prepare a document.  In fact at this stage they probably already have.  There is a clear distraction between carrying on the task and at the end making a decision.

In section forty-nine (49) there is an interesting caveat over which there will be a legal wrestling match.  Any vacancy in membership broadly means that all can resign except the chairman.  This is just the situation where other members will have to be appointed and the persons with the authority to do so nominate the relevant number of members.

There are some persons who are so blinded by politics and so shallow that they fail to consider the possibility of the two members appointed by the Government resigning.  Would the Commission continue allowing members of the opposition to do the work and make the decision?  Ha! Ha! Ha!  OR, would the Government seek to exercise its right to appoint its members?

The Constitution states that any decision of the Commission shall require the Concurrence of a majority of ALL its members, NOT REMAINING members or to be in extremist, member!

Again the question presents itself, would the Government i.e., Labour Government maintain the right to nominate two members if MARTIN AND LIBURD WERE TO RESIGN.

MARK BRANTLEY THEREFORE STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE NEW MEMBERS.