Gov’t, PNP claim 'victory' in latest round of Portmore parish law saga

The Supreme Court has not extended an injunction that blocked enforcement of the Portmore parish law after the Government's "unequivocal undertaking" not to bring the law into operation until certain constitutional requirements are "complied with."

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes issued the order Friday, following legal arguments between members of the PNP and the Government over whether an interim injunction imposed on March 21 should continue until a lawsuit brought by the PNP members is tried.

The PNP and the Government are claiming 'victory' with today's outcome.

The orders:

- The defendants (the Attorney General and Local Government Minister) give an unequivocal undertaking not to appoint a day for the Counties and Parishes (Amendment) Act, 2025, to come into operation until the procedure prescribed in Section 67 of the Constitution has been complied with and an order is made under Section 67 of the Constitution.

- In the event that the defendants wish to be released from the undertaking, they must give 30 clear days' notice in writing to the claimants' attorneys-at-law.

The court ordered both sides to cover their legal costs.

Section 67 of the Constitution outlines the processes in declaring constituency boundaries.

The Government argued that it never intended to enforce the Portmore parish law until constituency boundaries were settled, pushing back against the PNP’s claims of potential constitutional breaches. This position was outlined in documents filed on Thursday ahead of Friday’s hearing.

The PNP claimants—Portmore’s Member of Parliament Fitz Jackson, Mayor Leon Thomas, and councillors Claude Hamilton and Vanrick Preddie—filed a lawsuit on March 17, arguing that enforcing the law prematurely would cause "potentially irreparable constitutional breaches" and "violations of the structure of local governance."

They also contended that the law’s implementation would create "widespread instability and electoral confusion" if later deemed unconstitutional.

However, the Government’s lawyers countered that there was "only one" arguable issue in maintaining the injunction—the allegation that the law was inconsistent with constitutional requirements for determining constituency boundaries. They emphasised that Local Government Minister Desmond McKenzie had not appointed a date for the legislation to take effect.

McKenzie did not reveal that intention during the parliamentary debate on the legislation in February.

MP Jackson said Friday's order requiring compliance with the Constitution "represents a block to the attempted gerrymandering of the constituency boundaries of Portmore by the JLP Government ahead of the general elections due in six months."

The PNP has claimed the orders as a "victory," adding that the decision "affirmed what we have consistently maintained: the Government was attempting to move forward in blatant breach of the constitutional process." It added that the Government’s disregard for both the [Electoral Commission]’s warning and the rule of law left us with no choice but to seek judicial intervention.

"The fact that the court has compelled the Government to give an undertaking—effectively halting their unlawful actions—demonstrates the seriousness of their disregard for due process. This victory is not just for the PNP but for every Jamaican who believes in justice, accountability, and the sanctity of our laws. We urge the Government to respect the Constitution and to adhere to the proper procedures in all matters of governance," it said.

The ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has reacted to the decision, with Alando Terrelonge, junior minister and St Catherine East Central MP, declaring the outcome a "win."

“This is a win for the people of Portmore! Parish status is something I have championed, and this Government will continue to take the necessary administrative steps to deliver on this promise in keeping with the wishes of the people," he said.

Terrelonge said the concerns raised by the Opposition in relation to constituency boundary adjustments "are just another clear example of the Opposition’s small-mindedness and lack of vision for the growth and development of Portmore."

“The Opposition’s inability to appreciate the historic and transformative decision to make Portmore the 15th parish demonstrates that ‘time come’ for the people of Portmore to recognise that all they do is oppose and oppose, and are unwilling to act in the best interest of the people of Jamaica," he said.

In a statement, Attorney General Dr Derrick McKoy expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision.

"We are very happy with the consent order. It sets out clearly what Minister McKenzie said the Government of Jamaica would be doing with the passage of the Parishes (Amendment) Act, 2025. Now that everyone is declared to be on the same page, we can look forward to achieving the objectives of the legislation," he said.

Former ECJ Chairman Professor Errol Miller said the earliest Portmore can become a parish is February 2026.

“If there is compliance with the Constitution of Jamaica, then the earliest time that Portmore can become a parish is February 2026. This is because the Constitution of Jamaica is pellucidly specific as to when electoral boundaries must be changed, which is during a two- to four-year period of general review, (which is) four years after the last period of general review. The last general review ended in February 2022," he said in an opinion published on his blog earlier this month.

The ECJ's Concerns

The Opposition had relied on concerns raised by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), which in February warned Parliament that the proposed parish boundary "may negatively affect" the constitutional provision prohibiting constituencies from crossing parish lines.

According to the ECJ, the proposed boundary would impact four constituencies, 13 electoral divisions, and 398 polling divisions from the parish of St Catherine.

The Government, however, maintained that the Counties and Parishes (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Portmore parish law) was only about creating a parish. It also said it had sought responses from the ECJ multiple times since June 2024 but had yet to receive updates. It cited engagements with the ECJ in 2022 and 2024 regarding the matter.

Government attorneys argued that there was "no serious issue to be tried," as the constitutional requirement regarding constituency boundaries applies to elections to the House of Representatives, not to the Counties and Parishes Act.

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com