Supreme Court Rules Against Opposition in DMO/Tourist Board Judicial Review Application

Minister of Tourism, Hon Josephine Connolly.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has denied leave for judicial review sought by Opposition Leader Hon. Edwin Astwood and Opposition's Appointed Member Hon. Alvin Garland against Minister of Tourism Hon. Josephine Connolly, Premier Hon. Washington Misick, and Speaker of the House Hon. Gordon Burton.

The challenge pertained to the introduction of two Bills, the Tourist Board (Dissolution Ordinance) and the Destination Management Fee Ordinance.

The Applicants contended that the Bills were presented without proper consultation, and they objected to the decision to dissolve the Tourist Board in favor of a Destination Management Organization. Relief sought included quashing the ordinances associated with these Bills.

Minister of Tourism Josephine Connolly welcomed the ruling, emphasizing that the establishment of Experience Turks and Caicos, the Destination Management and Marketing Organisation, was a positive step for the country's tourism. She expressed confidence that this decision would support the ongoing implementation of the new framework, fostering economic growth.

The Court, in its judgment, considered various factors raised by the Attorney General’s Chambers on behalf of the Government, including the lack of jurisdiction, delay in seeking leave, failure to explore alternative remedies, lack of locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court), and the absence of power to quash primary legislation.

Regarding the power to quash an Ordinance, the Court clarified that it does not have such authority for primary legislation unless it violates the Constitution, in which case the Court can only make a declaration. The Court found that the Applicants were not prompt in filing their application for judicial review, and the delay was a significant factor in its decision.

The Court also highlighted the existence of alternative remedies, such as the Privileges Committee, which the Applicants had not explored. The Court emphasized that decisions of the Speaker and proceedings in Parliament are generally not subject to judicial review, except in specified circumstances.

On the issue of consultation, the Court acknowledged the Government's evidence of adequate and proper consultation but noted that the determination of its sufficiency would require a substantive hearing.

Principal Crown Counsel, Civil Litigation, Ms. Clemar Hippolyte and Senior Crown Counsel, Mr. Khadija McFarlane represented the Government, while attorney George Missick appeared on behalf of the Opposition.

Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles praised the judgment, asserting its significance in upholding parliamentary sovereignty and reinforcing democratic values. She emphasized that the decision underscores the paramount status of parliamentary decisions within the legal framework and the importance of respecting the legislative process.

The ruling brings clarity to the legal framework surrounding the Bills and affirms the government's position on the establishment of Experience Turks and Caicos.