High Court rules detention of former Dominca PM was unlawful

Former Dominica Prime Minister Edison James is calling a recent High Court ruling a major vindication of his constitutional rights, after the court found that Magistrate Michael Laudat acted unlawfully when he ordered James’ imprisonment without first granting him a bail hearing.

- Advertisement -

James filed the constitutional motion after he was taken into custody and placed in a holding cell at the Roseau Magistrate’s Court during his ongoing incitement trial—an action he argued violated his fundamental freedoms.

The ruling stems from events in February 2024, when Magistrate Laudat ordered that James, 80, be committed to prison while awaiting a potential bail hearing in the incitement matter involving senior figures from the opposition United Workers Party (UWP). James served as prime minister from 1995 to 2000.

He is charged alongside former UWP leader Lennox Linton and current party leader Dr. Thomson Fontaine. Prosecutors allege that on February 7, 2017, James incited unrest by encouraging actions that could endanger public peace following a UWP meeting where calls were made for Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s resignation.

Following the High Court ruling, James emphasized that his legal action was grounded in principle—not compensation.

“The law provides the opportunity to request bail and for bail to be considered before any further action is taken,” he said. “Instead, I was committed to imprisonment without that right being respected. The High Court has now affirmed that my freedom cannot be taken away in such a manner.”

James said he regretted that Magistrate Laudat’s actions amounted to a breach of constitutional rights, noting that the case should serve as a reminder that judicial officers have a duty to uphold the rule of law.

He stressed that violations of citizens’ rights not only harm individuals but also result in financial costs to the state. He added that the ruling sends a powerful message that citizens have the right to seek redress through the courts when their constitutional protections are breached.

James also used the moment to link his legal battle to broader governance issues, pointing to ongoing debates around major national developments such as the proposed new airport. He argued that such projects must follow legal procedures and include proper consultation with the public.

Beyond the constitutional case, James is also involved in a separate dispute over quarry operations near his residence in Hatten Garden. He previously secured an interim court order limiting the crushing plant’s hours of operation, arguing that the activity interfered with his family’s ability to enjoy their home.

The matter is scheduled for further hearings. James has asked the court to take judicial notice of a newly installed crusher in the Stonefield, Deux Branche area, which he says contradicts claims that the Hatten Garden facility is the only available source of material.

“My action has nothing to do with stopping or impeding the operation,” he said. “It is about removing the nuisance associated with having such an operation in my front yard. We look forward to the court’s decision.”

In the High Court matter, James was represented by Queen’s Counsel Thomas. Attorney Gildon Richards represented him in the magistrates’ court.