The time has come to point out two seriously and opposing realities. There is before the Supreme Court a case in Cheshire Hall, Providenciales, where PDM candidate Oral Selver challenged the nomination of Dr Ed Smith because, as a US citizen, Dr Smith was not qualified to be nominated under the TCI Constitution because he still owed an allegiance to another flag, the US. Further grounds are that Selver “lost” by 30 votes and Smith garnered 58 votes, materially affecting the outcome of that election. As soon as the attorney general was served with a copy of Selver’s suit he announced that “if this is true” that the courts would no doubt vacate the result and order by elections under the Elections Ordinance. He said “nothing” else. It is interesting however how the local media handled the report.
The TCI Sun, which is owned by Hayden Boyce and Lillian Boyce, a former minister charged by the SIPT, reported that it conducted an interview with Dr Smith and that Dr Smith told the Sun that he had already renounced by the time of the elections.
The TCI Weekly News
The other interview or talk with Dr Smith was in the TC Weekly News and there is no mention of any renunciation on the part of Dr Smith before the elections. Mind you the TC Weekly News has no “axe to grind” in this election because the editor of the Weekly News has made sure he stayed out of politics.
Events unfolding show that the Weekly News carried the more accurate report and that the report appearing in the Sun was not entirely true.
1. The Attorney General had every opportunity to state that the case would “go nowhere” because Dr Smith had already renounced.
2. Dr Smith has had every opportunity to issue a press release since the filing of the case to say that he renounced.
3. The Supervisor of Elections has information showing that there is no renunciation.
It could only mean that the item or interview purportedly with Dr Smith was made up, fabricated and, following a long trend of lying, the Sun again cannot be trusted. It has a motive to lie, make things up and, in this case, to try and negatively influence the outcome of a court case.
It is interesting that if people do not read how they could be misled.