Supreme Court identifies deficiencies in disclosure, orders further compliance and stresses that no person or entity is above the law
The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in the continuing legal proceedings involving former Finance Minister and Progressive Labour Party leadership candidate Curtis Dickinson, identifying deficiencies in compliance with previous Court orders and imposing further requirements on representatives of the Progressive Labour Party.
The matter, The Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson, JP, MP and Others v Simmons and Another, Supreme Court Civil Case No. 248 of 2026, was heard by Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams on Friday, September 18, 2026.
The Court made its decision that day, with the Acting Chief Justice issuing her written reasons on Monday, September 21, 2026.
The latest ruling follows earlier orders made by the Supreme Court on September 4 and September 10 concerning the PLP’s 2026 membership process and two resolutions adopted by the Party’s Central Committee on August 24.
In particularly clear language, the Acting Chief Justice said the written ruling was intended to provide the defendants, in their representative capacities for the PLP, with “undeniable certainty” about their duties and obligations imposed by the Court.
She further stated that the ruling was intended to serve as a “reminder and even warning” that compliance with Court orders is mandatory as a matter of law and that “no one person or entity is above the law.”
Court Identifies Outstanding Disclosure
A major issue addressed by the Court concerned documents connected with the PLP Central Committee meeting held on September 8.
The Court had previously ordered disclosure of material relating to that meeting, including the Party Leader’s motion placed before and voted upon by the Central Committee, motions concerning the proposed Special Delegates Conference, the notice convening the meeting, the agenda and the attendance and voting record.
The ruling records that the Court was informed that these materials had not been disclosed pursuant to the relevant paragraph of the injunction, despite an earlier Court order requiring their disclosure by September 11.
The September 8 meeting was relevant because evidence placed before the Court concerned a proposal to have delegates consider matters connected with the August 24 resolutions while those issues were already before the Supreme Court.
The Court subsequently strengthened its orders to ensure there could be no uncertainty about what was required of the Party and its representatives.
Membership Process Not Fully Disclosed
The Court also found that the plaintiffs had not received the complete Membership Process documentation to which they were entitled.
The Acting Chief Justice examined the Central Committee’s draft minutes and the Membership Process material provided in the proceedings.
She concluded:
“In my judgment, the Plaintiffs were entitled to have received a full copy of the text of the membership process which appears to have been attached to the draft minutes.”
The Court therefore ordered disclosure of the Membership Process document, the relevant motion and any other documents connected with the Membership Process that were before the Central Committee on July 13, 2026.
Court Questions Absence of Complete Membership List
The Court also addressed the Party’s membership records.
Evidence before the Court indicated that the Party had not been able to provide a final membership list as at August 31 because its process of verifying and entering membership applications had not been completed.
However, the Acting Chief Justice found that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive a full list of current Party members who became members during the 12 months preceding August 31, 2026.
The judge noted that the evidence suggested only confirmed members were positioned to participate in branch meetings and votes concerning the selection of delegates.
She therefore questioned why a list of confirmed PLP members for the relevant period would not have been readily available.
The Court concluded that this had been “insufficiently explained” in the evidence presented by the defendants.
Court Raises Serious Compliance Concerns
The ruling also addressed whether the affidavit required to demonstrate compliance with the Court’s previous orders adequately dealt with the events and disclosure obligations arising from the September 8 Central Committee meeting.
The Acting Chief Justice found that the compliance evidence did not address the allegations concerning that meeting.
The Court stated that the evidence before it disclosed a “prima facie case of a serious breach of the terms of this Court’s injunction.”
The judge stressed that the injunction applied to the PLP through the defendants acting in their representative capacities and included both prohibitions concerning the disputed addenda and mandatory obligations requiring disclosure and evidence of compliance.
Court Strikes Out Evidence
The Court also struck portions of affidavit evidence concerning allegations of membership manipulation, fraud or error and the verification of membership applications.
Several affidavits were struck out in their entirety, while portions of another affidavit were removed.
The Acting Chief Justice explained that the evidence was struck under Rule 41/6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which permits the Court to strike affidavit material that is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive.
Crucially, the judge stated:
“In my judgment, the evidence struck out was of no relevance to these proceedings.”
She reiterated that the principal issues for trial are legal questions concerning the Court’s interpretation of the PLP Constitution and Bye-Laws and the validity of the disputed addenda.
PLP Required to Detail Membership Verification Process
The September 18 order imposed further specific obligations on the Party’s representatives.
The Court required disclosure of the Membership Process and associated documents that were before the Central Committee on July 13.
The required affidavit must also provide particulars of the exact verification process that has been and continues to be undertaken, together with the exact number of membership applicants who remain unverified.
The deadline established by the Court for compliance with these requirements was 12 noon on Tuesday, September 22, 2026.
Party Leader and Central Committee Must Receive Court Orders
In another significant step, the Court ordered that the relevant Court documents be formally served upon both the PLP Party Leader and the Central Committee.
Those documents included the September 4 injunction, the September 10 Consent Order, the September 10 ruling and the subsequent order arising from the latest application.
The deadline for that service was 12 noon on September 21.
The defendants were further required to confirm through affidavit evidence that this had been done.
Explaining this requirement, Acting Chief Justice Subair Williams said the Party Leader and Central Committee “ought to be formally made aware of the Orders of this Court.”
Defendants Ordered to Pay Costs
The Court also ordered that the costs associated with the September 17 summons be paid by the defendants on the standard basis, with those costs to be taxed if the parties cannot reach agreement.
Judge Emphasises Rule of Law
A central theme running throughout the ruling is the importance of compliance with Court orders and the rule of law.
Acting Chief Justice Subair Williams stated that the principle that no one is above the law means that persons and entities are required to conform with orders made by an independent and impartial Court.
She said the circumstances required the Court to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the defendants were under no confusion regarding the existence or meaning of its orders.
The ruling makes clear that a Court order remains binding unless and until it is varied or set aside by the Court.
Trial Set for October 1 and 2
The September ruling does not determine the ultimate validity of the disputed PLP resolutions.
Those substantive legal questions remain to be determined.
The case is scheduled for trial in the Supreme Court on October 1 and October 2, 2026, commencing at 10am.
The trial will address the legal questions surrounding the interpretation of the PLP Constitution and Bye-Laws and the validity of the disputed membership and delegate eligibility addenda.
The latest ruling, however, establishes immediate obligations concerning disclosure and compliance and leaves the Party and its representatives with clear directions from the Supreme Court ahead of the October trial.
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.