A hearing was held today in the Supreme Court Commercial Court section before Justice Shade Subair Williams as the legal battle surrounding the Progressive Labour Party’s internal leadership and delegate dispute continues.
The hearing involved King’s Counsel Delroy Duncan representing Curtis Dickinson and Mark Pettingill, who represents the Progressive Labour Party, Premier David Burt and other parties named in the proceedings, including PLP Chair Dawn Simmons and Secretary General Patricia Baisden.
At this time, TNN News has not been able to confirm the precise directions or orders handed down by Justice Subair Williams during this morning’s proceedings.
However, the latest court appearance comes amid questions over whether actions taken during a PLP Central Committee meeting on Tuesday may have breached an earlier Supreme Court order.
TNN spoke with constitutional lawyer Phil Perinchief, who expressed serious concerns over what occurred at the PLP headquarters on Tuesday.
According to Mr. Perinchief, if the existing Supreme Court order placed a stay or injunction on the August 24, 2026 motions and prevented any further action being taken in relation to those motions, then proceeding with a resolution to convene a special delegates conference could potentially amount to a breach of the court’s order.
“Any movement at all would be a breach of that order,” Mr. Perinchief told TNN, if the order indeed prohibits further action concerning those motions.
He further explained that a breach of a court order could potentially constitute contempt of court and expose those found to have breached the order to penalties.
Mr. Perinchief also questioned whether any potentially unconstitutional motion could be validated simply by taking it before a special delegates conference at a later date.
He raised a second constitutional concern regarding the decision to convene a special delegates conference on Monday.
According to his reading of the PLP Constitution, the required notice period for such a conference raises questions over whether Monday’s proposed conference could be constitutionally convened on the shortened timetable.
Mr. Perinchief described the situation as potentially involving “error upon error” — first, an allegedly unconstitutional motion and, secondly, what he believes could be an unconstitutionally convened special delegates conference.
He stressed, however, that he had not personally seen the court order and therefore could not definitively state that the PLP or any individual had breached it.
The constitutional lawyer said the purpose of today’s proceedings could be to provide directions to the parties on how the matter should proceed, although, given the urgency of the dispute, Justice Shade Subair Williams could potentially move toward addressing the substantive constitutional issues.
The legal proceedings remain focused on the disputed PLP motions and the subsequent actions taken by the party following the Supreme Court proceedings.
This is what it will all boil down to in the end.
A proper construction and application of the “ fit for purpose” Special provision of the PLP for “ amendments”, in relation to what was attempted to be passed on August 24, 2026.
Clause 8 of the Bye Laws of that Constitution, cannot “ make amendments “, Trevor.
It’s not “ fit for that purpose”.
Accordingly, it is highly probable that the Court will find that the Motions attempted to be passed by the CC of the PLP are “ unconstitutional, and as such, of no legal or constitutional force or effect.
Sending an “ unconstitutional matter to another , albeit higher, authority, doesn’t convert an “ unconstitutional motion” into a “constitutional” one.
In any event, such a moving to a SDC may well be a breach of the courts injunctive order, and a contempt of that order.
That violation could invite serious penalties, civil and otherwise, from the court upon the offenders., with severe personal costs being awarded against them.
TNN understands that the next scheduled appearance involving the lawyers representing Curtis Dickinson and the Progressive Labour Party is set for October 1 and October 2 in the Supreme Court’s Commercial Court session.
Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful, or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites, or repeats previous comments will be removed.
User comments posted on this website are solely the views and opinions of the comment writer and are not a representation of or reflection of the opinions of TNN or its staff.
TNN reserves the right to remove, edit or censor any comments.
TNN accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for the comments made by users.