BANNER BATTLE
PNP MP hopefuls drag St James MC to court over election poster purge
Published:Friday | May 2, 2025 | 12:18 AMKimone Francis/Senior Staff Reporter
Jamaica’s Supreme Court is being asked to quash a decision by the St James Municipal Corporation to remove political posters of prospective candidates for the upcoming general election and to bar the local authority from taking any similar action.
The 56-page claim was filed by three People’s National Party (PNP) prospective candidates – Dr Andre Haughton, Senator Janice Allen, and Allan Bernard – on Tuesday, seeking judicial review of the St James Municipal Corporation’s decision to remove their campaign posters in the parish.
They also want a review of the motion passed by the finance committee of the municipal corporation on April 9, 2025, prohibiting the display of advertising pending an announcement of an election; an order barring the corporation from interfering in the applicants’ political advertising; and an order compelling the corporation to return, restore, and reinstate their advertising.
Further, they want the court to mandate the reinstatement or return of posters the municipal corporation removed from locations across the parish and a declaration that it acted unlawfully.
The three are also seeking general and aggravated damages.
They argued that the political posters were mounted to advance their cause on the basis that there is a pending general election.
They said by way of public pronouncements in the print media that they had realised that officers of the municipal corporation intended to remove their posters on the grounds that a date had not been set for the general election.
They said that on or around April 5, approximately 15 of their posters were removed without any notification to them.
Further, they said on April 9, a motion was passed at a finance committee meeting of the municipal corporation in relation to the prohibition and removal of the posters. The claimants said they were not aware of the meeting and were given no opportunity to participate or be represented.
‘Natural’ part of campaign
They asserted that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulation, 1978 allows for the mounting of advertisements relating to a pending parliamentary election without the express consent of the municipal corporation.
“The circumstances reveal that the general parliamentary elections, which are constitutionally due by or before December 2025, must be pending,” the claim said.
“It would create an absurdity not to accept this period for which a parliamentary election shall become pending as advertisements are a natural part of a parliamentary campaign and form part of which a financial obligation to report would flow,” it said.
The three prospective candidates said the municipal corporation is one of 15 local municipalities, noting that none of the others have expressed the same interpretation of the regulation – one which lends itself to “massive political interference and disturbance to the parliamentary candidates in the parish of St James”.
They said that the municipal authority has provided no reasonable justification such as public safety concerns, substantial harm to the local amenity, or obstruction that necessitated the immediate removal of their political advertisements or signage without prior notice or an opportunity for rectification.
The three insisted that there is no alternative remedy available to them, noting that a judicial review is the only way by which they can seek redress.
“Given the public importance of the reliefs sought and the need for uniformity across the municipalities, this matter is best resolved by a judicial review court. Therefore, even if any alternative method of redress exists, judicial review is the most appropriate avenue.
“The [municipal corporation’s] decision to remove political advertisements without prior notice or consultation, despite less intrusive alternatives being available, constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ democratic rights to political expression and participation. This unjustifiable and excessive exercise of statutory powers significantly prejudices the applicants’ campaign,” the claim said.