Barnett: MoBay mayor duty bound to respond to political ombudsman’s concerns

Constitutional lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett says Mayor of Montego Bay Richard Vernon has a duty to respond to the political ombudsman following the removal of political posters for People’s National Party prospective candidates.

Barnett said the political ombudsman controls the interchanges between political parties and is charged with settling disputes.

“If a member of a political organisation takes an adverse position into something done by the opposing party, then that type of dispute is something that the political ombudsman is entitled to intervene in and to ask for explanations, and there is a duty to respond to the political ombudsman,” he told The Gleaner on Tuesday.

Vernon, through his attorney, in a letter to the political ombudsman dated May 14, 2025, said he could not determine the basis on which the office had sought a response from him or the St James Municipal Corporation.

“Our clients are committed to observing the provisions of the Political Ombudsman (Interim) (Amendment) Act, 2024. However, on perusal of the Act, we cannot find the basis upon which our clients are being asked to provide the relevant explanations, particularly in the context of the municipality’s performance of its statutory obligations under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1978 which preceded the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2016 by thirty-eight (38) years,” the letter read.

It said the regulations are not unclear or ambiguous as to the obligations of the municipal corporation, nor are the other relevant laws under which the corporation has jurisdiction.

The letter stated that the corporation is neither a political party nor person, and the mayor, who is also the chairman of the corporation, performs his duties as such.

Vernon is the councillor for the Montego Bay South Division and was elected on the governing Jamaica Labour Party’s ticket in the February 2024 local government elections.

Barnett said the Town and Country Planning Act is specifically geared to controlling developments, so as to ensure safety, security and good sanitary facilities.

The attorney said the act makes very little reference to advertisements, which is the classification likely given to the posters removed.

He said the act stipulates that the local authority may control the construction of special edifices in relation to the making of advertising material.

‘VERY DEFECTIVE’

“But that has nothing really to do with what I understand to be paper posters which are [affixed] to a tree or building. The regulations made under the Town and Country Planning Act do not prescribe very specifically what the rules are in relation to advertisements,” said Barnett, adding that this makes the legislation “very defective”.

On the contrary, he said other regulations provide that advertisements for the purposes of local government or national parliamentary elections are permitted without the requirement for approval by the Town and Country Planning Authority or to the authorities.

“You’re entitled to have those advertisements remain in place during the election campaign and up to 14 days after the close of the polls. So that, there has to be a very good reason – such as, the posters are causing dangers to public safety or otherwise are offensive in their terms - for the local authority to demand that they be taken down,” he said.

He said if it were to make such a demand, it would have to comply with due process provisions.

The political ombudsman had asked Vernon for a written explanation outlining the basis on which campaign posters of the prospective candidates for the Opposition had been removed by the St James Municipal Corporation.

The ombudsman said guidance on the commencement of the campaign period is provided under Section 2(1) of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2016.

“... n accordance with the responsibilities assigned to this Office under the Political Ombudsman (Interim) (Amendment) Act, 2024, we request a written explanation of your action and an outline of the legal authority and basis upon which the removal of the aforementioned campaign materials was carried out,” stated a letter from the political ombudsman dated April 25.

Further, it noted that the campaign period began in March, and added that a general election is due by September.

The minority caucus of the St James Municipality Corporation and Vernon clashed in April, during a meeting, over the removal of posters.

The affected PNP prospective candidates have since filed claims in the Supreme Court.

The PNP has insisted that the decision, which it blamed on Vernon, is “a type of politics that comes because of desperation”.

The party accused Vernon, a representative of the governing Jamaica Labour Party, of playing politics.

The Opposition party has argued that the country is within the campaign period. The party also cited provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertising) Regulations, wherein advertising relating specifically to an independent parliamentary or local election may be undertaken without the express consent of the municipal authority.

Vernon had announced in early April that the corporation would ban the placement of political signage in St James ahead of any announcement of an official date for the impending general election.

Furthermore, he said, the municipal authority had not given any approval for such displays.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com