Re Aikman

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Moe, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 22 December 1983
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: Action 390 of 1983
• Date: 22 December 1983

Supreme Court

Moe, C.J.

Action 390 of 1983

Re Aikman

Messrs. H. Elrington, P. Goldson and Dean Barrow for the applicants.

Messrs. V. H. Courtenay S.C. and D. Courtenay S.C. for the respondent.

Judicial review - Mandamus — Application for an order for mandamus commanding respondent to permit applicant to inspect and take copies of voter registration records kept in binders — Applicable rules — Representation of the People Registration Rules, 1978, Rules 67, 70 — Representation of People Registration (Amendment) Rules, No. 73/1981 — Interpretation Ordinance of Belize, ss.59, 109(3) — Application refused — By the binders of registration cards are not documents required to be published.

Moe, C.J.

1 This is an application for an order of mandamus commanding the respondent, Mr. Roy Young, the Chief Elections Officer to permit the applicants, Derek Aikman, Ramon Vasques and Mark Verge to inspect and take copies of the records relating to the registration and identification of voters kept by them in the form of binders. The applicants seek to have the respondents comply with Rules 67 and 70 of the Representation of the People Registration Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules) contained in Schedule II of the Representation of the People Ordinance No. 2 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance).

2 It was necessary to determine first what are the applicable rules. The applicants have relied on provisions contained in the Representation of the People Registration (Amendment) Rules published as Statutory Instrument 73 of 1981, which purport to amend the principal rules. The respondent put before me an affidavit from the Clerk of the National Assembly, which I accept, that the rules contained in Statutory Instrument 73 of 1981 were not laid before the National Assembly.

3 The Statutory Instrument 73 of 1981 sets out that it was made by the Minister of Home Affairs on the 28 ^th August 1981 by virtue of Section 69 of the Ordinance. I therefore turn to subsection 3 thereof which provides:–

“(3) Any rule made pursuant to this section shall be laid before the National Assembly as soon as may be after the making thereof and if the assembly resolution request that such rule be rescinded such rule shall be rescinded by the minister but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.”

4 Counsel for the applicants submitted that omission to lay the rules as stated in section 69(3) (supra) does not invalidate the S.I. 73 of 1981. Reference was made to certain cases which, it was submitted, similar provisions were held to be directory only.

Bayley v. Williamson (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 118

Starey v. Graham (1899) 1 Q.B. 408

Springer v. Deerley (1950) L.R.B.G. 10

Jones v. Robison (1901) 1 K.B. 673

5 I think it is sufficient to hold that any principles of construction enunciated in those cases are subject to the specific stipulations of the interpretation ordinance of Belize No. 18 of 1980 the title of which tells us it is “An Ordinance to consolidate and amend the law relating to the construction, application and interpretation of laws… to define terms and expressions in law and public documents….”. In section 2(1) it provides: “Save where the contrary intention appears either from the context of this ordinance or any other ordinance or instrument, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply to this ordinance and to any other ordinance in force whether such other ordinance comes or came into operation before or after the commencement of this ordinance and to any instrument made or issued by virtue of this ordinance.”

6 I am fortified in this by the decision of the Supreme Court of Barbados in Ronald Biggs v. The Commissioner of Police Supreme Court Action No. 16 of 1981. In that case the question arose as to whether the failure to lay the designated Commonwealth Countries Extradition Order 1980 S.I. no. 74 of 1980 made under the Extradition Act 1979, naming the U.K. as a country to which persons could be extradited, invalidated the Order. At the time, it was sought to extradite Biggs form Barbados pursuant to those provisions ten months after the order had been made. Chief Justice Sir William Douglas held inter alia that while Springer v. Doorley (supra) had held that the affirmative laying requirement was directory and Bayley v. Williamson (supra) had held that the negative laying requirement was directory, those cases were decided in relation to interpretation provisions which differed from the present interpretations Act of Barbados. Consequently any principles laid down in these old cases must be read subject to the specific provisions of the interpretation act of Barbados.

7 Section 59 of the Interpretation Ordinance of Belize provides as follows:— “In an enactment ‘shall’ shall be construed as imperative….”

8 By virtue of this section and section 2 (supra) the Interpretation Ordinance has expressly laid down that the requirement, in an ordinance or instrument to which it applies, that an instrument (such as in S.I. 73 of 1981) shall be laid, is imperative. This duty to lay could be other than mandatory if there is a contrary intention in the words of the respective ordinance or instrument. No such contrary intention appears in Section 69(3) of the principal rules nor the Ordinance.

9 The 69(3) further requires the duty to be performed “as soon as may be”. That expression is interpreted to mean “within a reasonable time having regard to the care and...