The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has ordered Free National Movement leader Michael Pintard, Chairman Dr Duane Sands and vice-chairman Richard Johnson not to personally attack each other or other FNM members in public until she has ruled on Mr Johnson’s lawsuit against the FNM leaders or made further orders.

Justice Deborah Fraser, in an order released yesterday, said: “All parties shall refrain from any personal attacks on each other and any other member of the Free National Movement (FNM) in the press, on any social media platform, or otherwise pending the determination of this Action or further Order of the Court.”

“The parties shall comply with the constitution of the FNM while attending any meetings or functions of the FNM.

“Save for the making or publication of any factual statements to disclose the Orders of the Court from time to time, without the addition of any personal commentary or opinion thereon or in relation thereto, the parties shall refrain from discussing these proceedings in the press, on any social media platform, or otherwise publicly pending further or final Order of the Court.”

Justice Fraser’s order came after Mr Pintard and Dr Sands filed an application to lift the injunction she set on March 8, which prevented them from barring Mr Johnson from council meetings.

Justice Fraser had ordered that, pending the determination of Mr Johnson’s lawsuit, he be allowed to attend meetings and carry out his duties.

She has adjourned the matter to April 14, 2023.

Mr Johnson is seeking $500,000 in damages after FNM executives unanimously barred him from council meetings.

He claimed in last year’s lawsuit that neither Mr Pintard nor Dr Sands had the authority to suspend his membership rights and reassign his vice-chair duties.

“No charge was laid against the plaintiff before the purported general suspension was imposed against the plaintiff, nor was the plaintiff afforded any opportunity to be heard and to respond to any allegations against him which gave rise to the purported general suspension,” his lawsuit said.

“In the alternative, the purported general suspension of the plaintiff was imposed by the second defendant without any meeting of the executive committee having been called to consider and authorise the issuance of the charge - together with the particulars of the allegation upon which the charge is based.

“In any event, (Dr Sands) had no authority to relieve the plaintiff of ‘any duties previously assigned to [him] as vice chairman’ nor to deprive the plaintiff of his ‘responsibility for any of the constituency associations’ as such duties of the plaintiff were assigned to him by the executive committee and, therefore, could only have been revoked by the executive committee.”

According to the lawsuit, Mr Johnson wants $250,000 for “loss and unlawful interference” of his membership, $250,000 for “mental distress concerning the matter,” and interest on the damages.