News, Top Story


High Court Throws Out Gov’t Claim Against UWP Leader.

United Workers Party leader Allen Chastanet.
United Workers Party leader Allen Chastanet.

FOR the second time in as many weeks, good fortune seems to have followed opposition United Workers Party leader Allen Chastanet.

Within days of him being virtually endorsed as the candidate to contest the Micoud South seat in the next election, Chastanet, on Tuesday, won an important battle in the High Court when a Judge dismissed one part of a civil lawsuit against him arising out of the 2011 election campaign when Chastanet contested in the Soufriere constituency.

The government had accused Chastanet of improperly using funds given to the Soufriere Town Council by the Taiwanese government to finance his election campaign.

The case was filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the government. Chastanet’s attorney, Garth Patterson, Q.C. was optimistic that the rest of the case will also be thrown out.

The UWP leader commenting on this week’s Court decision accused the government of using the Attorney General’s Office to try to tarnish his name, and warned that office to exercise caution when launching a civil case against someone.

The case arose out of a document entitled “Review of Financial Operations of Town, Village and Rural Councils”, which was authorized by the ruling St Lucia Labour Party in support of its claims that government funds were misused by members of the UWP when they last held power from 2006-11.

The document, under a sub heading “Alleged Misappropriation of Funds” that deals with the Soufriere Town Council and notes that that Council had received funds from Central Government and the Taiwanese Government for the execution of various projects. However it appeared that payments were made from these funds for unauthorized purposes.

The document further added that the payments in question, which totaled $38,644, were made for the benefit and at the behest of Chastanet who at the time was the UWP candidate for the Soufriere/Fond St Jacques Constituency during the 2011 general elections. According to the document the payments were not part of the operations of the Council and were used to launch Chastanet as the UWP candidate.

The government translated the findings of the document as it pertains to the Soufriere Council into a civil lawsuit against Chastanet charging him with misfeasance in public office and a breach of his fiduciary duty. Chastanet at the time was also the Minister for Tourism under the then Prime Minister Stephenson King.

Chastanet challenged the claims against him on a number of grounds one of which was that the Attorney General had no jurisdiction where those claims were concerned and that the allegations against him were baseless.


“The court vindicated Mr.Chastanet by dismissing one part of the claim of misfeasance in office. In ruling that the Attorney General had no jurisdiction to bring the claim, the judge effectively brought that part of the proceedings to an end. There is a residual part of the case as it relates to the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, and that is still pending but in light of the decision made by the court the likelihood is that that claim would likely be dismissed,” Patterson said.

It was not immediately clear what effect Tuesday’s ruling would have on any of the other cases that the government is likely to pursue against other UWP candidates, arising out of the same review of the financial operations of other local government bodies. But Chastanet was happy that he had been cleared.

He said: “I value my name and reputation very, very much. I know that I’m in the realm of politics and that I cannot sue and challenge everyone with allegations against someone. But this was a very serious allegation and we have succeeded in getting the government claims against me and the allegations against me dismissed.

“The Attorney General and the government have every right to charge anyone on a criminal matter. When it comes to a criminal matter their standing in that area is not so far reaching. It means that the onus is on the Attorney General, if they are going at anyone on a civil case, that they are very cautious and very prudent on how they do it. I think this was clearly an example where the Attorney General’s office was misused to specifically tarnish my name because of my involvement in politics. I am very, very grateful today that my name has been cleared. I have never misused government monies for my own personal gain. I am looking forward to the final completion of this case,” Chastanet said.

UWP members have several others pending in the courts, including one challenging the present government’s attempt to increase the number of constituencies from 17 to 21 ahead of the next general elections, scheduled to be held by March 2017 at the very latest.


  1. Well, even idiots can get good legal representation leading to a dismissal, but what will be the final outcome of this case ? We will soon come to know. But whatever the outcome, this fraudster has proven beyond doubt that he is not trustworthy and continues to lie and is a knave.

  2. Many perturbing things here. First the AG who is the chief legal advisor brings a case on behalf of the Government and is essentially told that it’s none of her business? Whose business is it? Who acts on behalf of the people in cases of malfeasance? Don’t we have an identical situation in the case of the AG of the US vs. the malfeasants in FIFA?

    If the judgment is legally correct, then how could the AG have made such a glaring faux-pas by involving herself in matters that are none of her concern?

    This is not the first case of this nature that the Government has lost. The case against Peter Josie was thrown out as well.

    Now to Ti Chas. How can he claim victory when the case was dismissed on a technicality? The ruling does not say he did not misuse funds; what it says is that the court could not rule on a case that should not have been brought before it.

  3. What if all the other cases as filed reads the same? Bal fini . The great one from Dominica did not do his home work. Double detention for him. When do we start fighting politics on the street corners instead of the Courts? is it true it cost the Government U.S. $40 K / shot? what a waste.

  4. Cher Chas
    My special influences on the scions of Versailles has implications on the do good contemporaries who chair the tribunals of the Current Hague. As you know the Hague justices are not only world class professionals-they actually influence the judicial systems of the civilized members of the United Nations General Assembly.
    Therefore, my ability to impinge on the jugular of Versailles (the ruling class of France) can reap huge positive outcomes via earnest timely indulgences.
    Of course the local court may have been more proactive and returned the case for further investigative review as per the DISBURSEMENT of all funds in that interim in which you CHas were even remotely invoved.
    Keep up with our Zurich accounts and the miracles shall continue.

  5. Tony Astaphans is a threat to democracy in the OECS. I hope Kenny An-Tony sees that. Skerrit, Browne and Douglas are already pulling away from him

  6. Allen Chastanet continues to be a monumental embarrassment to the people of this 238 square mile, but it is the Negroes in this UWP cabal, who, because of their affliction of the inferiority complex brought about from the worship of a Naked Caucasian as their God and Savior is the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room.

    These Negroes, because of their conditioning, honestly see this idiot Allen Chastanet as some intellectual giant, able to stand in the shoes of a Dr. Kenny Anthony. Here is a look at a mentally retarded Allen Chastanet, standing before a Lucian and world audience attempting to act knowledgeable, while saying that the Civil War of 1861 was fought in 1773 because of the Tea Act and the Boston Tea Party.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend