Later today, 2 Dec., the Grand Court is set to hold a judicial review into Governor Martyn Roper’s use of his reserved power to enact civil partnership legislation in Cayman.
The two-day civil proceeding is set to focus on a very narrow aspect of law, which is whether the reserved power granted to the governor by section 81 of the Constitution gives him the right to enact legislation, or whether the Constitution limits such powers to the Cayman Islands Parliament.
The legal challenge has been brought by Kattina Anglin, who asserts that by pushing through the failed legislation, the governor acted unlawfully and irrationally. Anglin has previously stated her concern is not with the actual legislation, but rather with how it was enacted.
Roper has consistently said that, when he enacted the legislation, he did so under instructions for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with a view of upholding the rule of law.
Colours Caribbean, a LGBTQ advocacy group, joined the judicial review as an interested party. Colours Caribbean says while it understands the narrow arguments being reviewed, the review should be done in a manner that takes into consideration the potential impact of removing the law.
The proceedings, which are set to begin at 9am in Court 5, will be livestreamed on the Judicial Administration website.
Related Videos
I don’t believe for a minute that this case was ever about anything but trying to throw obstacles into the path of same-sex marriage. Further, I suspect that the delay in the ruling from the Privy Council on the case that’s pending there is on account of the above case. If by some miscarriage of justice, the above case is decided against the governor, then may the UK please issue an Order in Council, putting an end to Cayman’s worldwide embarrassment on this matter and bringing forth same-sex marriage immediately. Bigots, go ahead and vote against me. It won’t change a thing.
Oh it’s taking a great page out of the book of American politics – you don’t oppose a particular people’s rights or a movement, you’re just for or against something else that just ever so happens to affect those rights. “I’m not *against* the Civil Rights movement, I’m just *for* State’s rights” for example. Yeah, sure you are.
So when Anglin comes up front of us all, after having lobbied the Christian Association of Civics for help in this case, and states that she’s not against the law but just didn’t like the process used to ascent it, I don’t believe a word of it. The Governor’s ascent of the law was only the first step of the UK putting its foot down on this issue. If they overrule this law on a technicality, I expect the UK to act more forward and directly this time.