Prime Minister Gaston Browne and Senator Samantha Marshall opened the batting in the immediate aftermath of June 7, when Simon gave his resignation to the Speaker of the House, Sir Gerald Watt, KC.

They spent the following days deliberately misinforming the public that somehow, despite the clear, unambiguous, adequate, and succinct provisions for resignation contained in the Constitution, Section 125, Kelvin Simon had not actually resigned.

At the national broadcasting station, ABS, the public was further deceived when newscasters repeatedly suggested that the third member of the troika, Sir Gerald, was empowered to make a decision on Simon’s resignation and whether it would be accepted.

It should be stated categorically that Sir Gerald has no such power. Why? Because the Constitution gives him no such power. So, what does the Constitution say about resignations?

Section 125 of the Constitution addresses the issue. Section 125(1)(b) when read in full states: “Any person who is appointed or elected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person or authority by whom he was appointed or elected provided that the resignation of any person from membership of the Senate or the House shall be addressed to the President or the Speaker, as the case may be.”

Section 125(2) states: “The resignation of any person from any such office as aforesaid shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed, or any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.”

Simon wrote to the Speaker on June 7, declaring his immediate resignation. ABS reported that very night, that the Speaker acknowledged that he received the letter. Constitutionally, the moment he received the letter, Simon’s seat became vacant.

Despite this, we have been treated to the most unsound, ungrounded, round-about and downright insane arguments as to why Simon has supposedly not tendered his resignation properly.

Prime Minister Gaston Browne over the weekend of Saturday, June 10, did not even bother to couch anything he said in a legal argument. He simply declared that he was certain that Simon had not resigned properly, and that the government therefore would not acknowledge the seat as being vacant.

He willingly waded further into unconstitutional waters, and declared that the government would not hold a by-election in 120 days as the Constitution demands, but would instead do so when the ABLP backed court matter filed against Simon on behalf of Marshall comes to a close – whenever that is.

Marshall, meanwhile, has been striking a similar tone, publicly making the absurd argument that MPs cannot resign without additional grounds approved by Parliament. This suggestion contradicts the most basic notion of the Constitution being the supreme law. If the Constitution makes it permissible for MPs to resign for any reason (which it implies by prescribing no grounds), how then can Parliament proceed to make any law that restricts the grounds upon which an MP can resign?

Completing the troika of unconstitutionality, the Speaker of the House has now written to former MP Kelvin Simon, outrageously claiming that Simon is still an MP. The Speaker’s letter to Simon, sent on Monday, June 12, is perhaps one of the most bizarre things you will read if you take the time to reference the sections of the Constitution he is quoting.

Firstly, he outright dismisses the power of Section 125 of the Constitution to give MPs what he calls the “right” to resign. This is despite the same section doing so in plain language.

Again, Section 125(1)(b) clearly states in full: “Any person who is appointed or elected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person or authority by whom he was appointed or elected provided that the resignation of any person from membership of the Senate or the House shall be addressed to the President or the Speaker, as the case may be.”

And further, 125(2) states: “The resignation of any person from any such office as aforesaid shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed, or any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.”

Seems pretty straightforward, right? That’s because it is. So, why would a senior attorney like Sir Gerald proffer such ludicrous arguments?

What is happening here is called gaslighting. This is when someone knowingly sows self-doubt and confusion in our minds by sticking vehemently to a false narrative in the face of reality, forcing us to question our own judgment and intuition.

The hope is that after a while, despite your ability to understand clear unambiguous language, and to think for yourself, you give up, and say “I’m not an attorney, so who am I to guess what this really means?” Alas, Sir Gerald is learned, and you and I are as dimwitted as a horse’s ass. Right?

In relation to what Sir Gerald is calling the “right” to resign, it warrants emphasizing again that Section 125 of the Constitution provides no preconditions for resignations. It merely requires that the person resigning simply express that intent in writing to the prescribed authority. It does not say that one can only resign if one scenario occurs or the other. It’s a carte blanche. The reasons for anyone choosing to resign from any post established by the Constitution are entirely theirs – retirement, illness, career change, scandal – it does not matter.

Secondly, he focuses on another Section of the Constitution – Section 41(1)(e) – that does not deal with resignations, and instead deals with barring members from crossing the floor to another party. He then claims that this section, Section 41(1)(e), is what should give effect to an MP’s resignation. Is he serious?

Section 41 deals with the tenure of MPs broadly, and speaks to a number of specific circumstances whereby an MP’s seat could become vacant, like ceasing to be a citizen or trying to cross the floor. It also contains the requirement that should a seat become vacant by any of the modes discussed in that section, or for any other reason, a by-election must be held within 120 days.

Bizarrely, Sir Gerald has specifically quoted Section 41(1)(e), which deals exclusively with preventing MPs from crossing the floor to another political party once elected. It is not entirely clear why Sir Gerald is quoting from a section that deals with members crossing the floor, as it does not arguably appear to have any immediate bearing on the current situation.

Section 41(1)(e) read in full states: “Every member of the House shall vacate his seat in the House if having been elected to the House by virtue of being a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from that party: Provided that he shall not be required to vacate his seat so long as he remains an independent member of the House.”

The provision is designed to prevent a person who was elected with one party from joining another party in the House while still an MP. If they leave their party, it allows them to sit only as an independent, but not to take up new allegiance to another party in the House. If they attempt to do so, the constitution views them as having vacated their seat, and forces a by-election.

Confused yet? You should be. That is because Sir Gerald’s assertions make no sense. What does this provision about not being able to switch sides once elected have to do with grounds for resignation? You and I know the answer: Nothing.

But Sir Gerald’s argument only gets more bizarre. In his letter to Simon, Sir Gerald further extrapolates and quotes a small portion of Section 41(1)(e), specifically the words “…a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from that party” and puts the words in emphasis in his letter to Simon.

The Speaker then claims to Simon that in order to resign, Simon must conform to Section 41(1)(e) of the Constitution. But he does not explain what he means, and it is unclear what exactly the Speaker is advising Simon to do. What does he mean? Does he mean that the only way an MP can resign from Parliament is to resign from their party? Does that not sound bizarre? Of course it does. Because it is.

No such requirement is stated or implied anywhere in the Constitution, and this is not a practice adhered to anywhere in the world. We would never even countenance this ridiculous notion were it not for the fact that a senior attorney in a senior public office has put this nonsense out in public.

Importantly, despite what many have been misled to believe, the views of the Speaker do not impact upon the effectiveness of Simon’s resignation. In effect, Sir Gerald has merely expressed his opinion.

The Constitution gives him no authority to accept or reject any MP’s resignation once it is received by him in writing in accordance with Section 125. He is not a judge. Perhaps we should be thankful he is not a judge. If he were, the courts of appeal might be overrun with litigants seeking relief from his judgements.

His arguments to Simon are clearly contrived, and it is shameful that he, Senator Marshall, and Prime Minister Browne, should waste the population’s time with these arguments as they seek to stall a constitutionally due by-election.

The government does not get to stall an election which is constitutionally due, merely because that election is politically inconvenient. The Constitution is the law, and no amount of weaseling, misinterpretation, or gaslighting will absolve them of their duty to the law.

Simon’s resignation would seem to upend the implications of the case in court against him. That seems to be the troika’s biggest concern. The case was filed in support of the losing candidate, Marshall.

The litigant backed by Marshall had sought an injunction to prevent Simon from being sworn in back in February, but this was refused. Another aspect of the case, the issue of the validity of the nomination, is awaiting a judgement. Simon was sworn in as an MP on February 17 as a representative for St. Mary’s South.

Samantha should be ashamed of herself. She seems to want the court to parachute her into the office from which the people in St. Mary’s South ejected her. She needs to stop praying for a miracle from the court and go back to face her constituents.

Gaston Browne should be ashamed of himself. However, after 10 years, I believe he has sufficiently demonstrated that he lacks the emotional capacity to experience shame. Sir Gerald, meanwhile, has totally debased himself in this latest saga. He has no credibility left.

Jonathan Willard