Attorney General Vincent Byron and Director of Public Prosecutions Travers Sinanan
Proceedings were issued today in the High Court of Justice to protect the integrity of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Lawyers acting for Travers Sinanan, the Director of Public Prosecutions of St Kitts and Nevis filed a claim against the Attorney General, Vincent Bryon Junior, stating that the Attorney General breached the Constitution of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis by unlawfully attempting to terminate the Director of Public Prosecutions appointment. The High Court proceedings further state that the Attorney General made unlawful attempts to dictate, control and/or usurp the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Despite being repeatedly informed over a period of months that the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions is, by settled legal precedent, subject only to the Constitution, the Attorney General asked Mr. Sinanan to leave Office without any notice on the 31st July 2015. Accordingly, Mr. Sinanan was forced to instruct lawyers to immediately act to protect the constitutional position of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
On 3rd August, 2015 Mr. Sinanan wrote to the Attorney General copying the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the St. Kitts and Nevis Bar Association and the OECS Bar Association seeking a written undertaking from the Attorney General that the Attorney General and the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis will respect the constitutionality of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the protections guaranteed to the holder of the said Office , who pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Prescribed Age) Act Cap 22.03, can lawfully hold Office until age 60 years old. Up to the time these proceedings were issued, no response or undertaking was received from the Attorney General.
Solicitors for Travers Sinanan are concerned that the actions of the Attorney General are a direct attack on the integrity of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and completely unconstitutional. This case is not just about Mr. Sinanan’s position but about Government acting within the law. It is extremely troubling that the Attorney General should feel that he can ignore the law and act with impunity. Nobody is above the law and this claim has been brought to ensure that this sacred principle is adhered to. In the meantime, Mr. Sinanan continues in his position as Director of Public Prosecutions.