The long-standing court case against United Workers Party (UWP) leaders continues to raise questions, with Political Leader Dr. Thomson Fontaine asserting that the matter is politically driven and lacks merit. The case, which has now dragged on for eight years, was once again adjourned during a court session on January 6.
Speaking outside the courthouse, Dr. Fontaine expressed confidence that justice would prevail, maintaining that neither he nor his co-accused—former Prime Minister Edison James and former UWP leader Lennox Linton—had committed any wrongdoing. He argued that the prosecution struggled to clearly define the charges against them, noting that while they were accused of incitement, there was no clarity on what specific actions they were alleged to have incited.
The legal team representing the UWP leaders challenged the reading of the charges, leading to another delay. The case is now scheduled to be called again on February 27, when a judge will determine whether it should be dismissed. Dr. Fontaine insisted that the charges were fabricated and intended to tie up opposition figures in the courts rather than serving justice.
He criticized what he described as the misuse of public funds, stating that while the government was spending millions prosecuting him and his colleagues, many individuals remained on remand at the state prison for extended periods without trial. He suggested that these resources would be better allocated toward improving the judicial system and ensuring timely justice for those in need.
The charges stem from a 2017 incident in which the UWP, then the parliamentary opposition, held a meeting in Roseau demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit. Following the event, several businesses in the capital were vandalized, leading to legal action against opposition members, including allegations of inciting violence and obstructing justice.
Dr. Fontaine remains resolute, stating that he and his colleagues will fight for justice and prove their innocence. He insists that this case is more about silencing political opponents than seeking legal accountability.
This article is copyright © 2025 DOM767
