Statement by the National Party in response to the Electoral Commission’s decision

Fourteen months after the submission of an initial application to alter the Register of Political Parties, the Electoral Commission has finally ruled that it will take no action. The body received separate submissions from both James Reynolds and Justin Barrett, but has concluded that it will not accept either application. As such, the Electoral Commission will not make any changes to the Register of Political Parties with respect to the National Party’s authorised officers to nominate candidates (which remains either Mr Reynolds or Mr Barrett) or the party’s registered address (Mr Barrett’s home address).

In short, the Electoral Commission has formalised a stalemate between both ‘sides’ in this dispute. The current Register of Political Parties is totally outdated and does not reflect the reality that the party has undeniably moved in a different direction to Mr Barrett since July 2023. Nobody involved in either ‘side’ of this dispute can be satisfied by the decision to leave the Register of Political Parties in the same state as it was in 2019. Thus, we consider the Electoral Commission’s decision to be profoundly unsatisfactory. It will inevitably lead to chaos and confusion. It will unjustly hamstring the ability of party members – Irish citizens legitimately partaking in the political process – to exercise their democratic right to participate in the political life of the State.

We are critical of the actions taken by the Electoral Commission during this process. Firstly, we believe the fourteen-month delay in acting on the original applications was gratuitously lengthy and produced the regrettable confusing situation over the nomination of candidates which arose during the June 2024 elections and which could again arise in an impending general election. By contrast, the 1997 adjudication by the Dáil Clerk over the disputed leadership and authorised officers of Muintir na hÉireann lasted just six weeks. Secondly, the Electoral Commission communicated its September 2024 decision as an unembargoed press release and a public statement at the same time as it was sent to the parties involved. In our view this was inappropriate and unfair and has resulted in many distorted and misleading media reports on the matter.

Finally, very important facts were brought to the attention of the Electoral Commission in the appeal of April 2024, such as the questionable basis for which the putative two-member National Directorate received its standing and the reality that term limits set down in the party’s constitution had been exceeded. Regrettably, the Electoral Commission did not even engage with these salient points. It also included blatantly false information, such as the incorrect claim that Mr Barrett had attempted to dismiss Mr Reynolds on 3 July 2023 when even Mr Barrett’s statutory declaration states he tried to dismiss him on 24 July 2023. We conclude that its final decision is extremely flawed.

…

In the opinion of the Electoral Commission, it is not prepared to accept the application for changes to the party’s Registration made on 14 July 2023. It does not accept either side as competent to request an application to change particulars related to the party’s Registration, including the 14 July application or a separate application made by Mr Barrett on 28 July 2023. It furthermore has chosen not to accept the outcome of motions passed or officers elected at the Annual General Meeting of 16 December 2023 as competent to request and process any application to change the particulars of the party’s Registration. This amounts to a stalemate.

The actions of 14 July 2023 were taken on a de facto understanding that Mr Reynolds and Mr Barrett were the only two individuals whose names had ever been supplied to state bodies in connection with the National Party, such as the Dáil Clerk or the Standards in Public Office Commission.

The party’s constitution was deliberately kept hidden by Mr Barrett during the lifetime of the National Party in an effort to frustrate any prospective challenges to his reputed leadership. Whenever a suspected leadership challenger arose, they were arbitrarily expelled by Mr Barrett – there are several examples of this. Mr Barrett purported to rule by decree and exercised the so-called ‘Leadership Principle’, an informal belief that he could exercise complete power without question or challenge. This was legally unsatisfactory and incongruent with the demands of the party’s enforceable constitution and Irish public law, but it was informally tolerated by members for several years.

The meeting of 14 July 2023 relied on an understanding that an iteration of the constitution at one stage claimed by Mr Barrett to be enforceable prescribed that a quorate meeting consisted of 50% of National Directorate members present, of which it was informally understood that there were just two members. Thus, it was assumed that the constitution could in theory be unilaterally amended by one of the National Directorate’s members. From an outside perspective, this could be interpreted as sharp practice, but it was seen as the only option available due to the absence of any AGMs or other internal elections within the party where a challenge could be fairly posed.

The intention was to quickly correct any perceived democratic deficit by holding a properly conducted AGM (which was without precedent in the party under Mr Barrett’s reputed rule) and to put the party on a stable footing. An AGM was held on 16 December 2023, which party members were invited to attend, and which resulted in the election of a National Directorate subsequently renamed the Ard Chomhairle which is composed of 12 members.

…

Whilst the Electoral Commission’s decision of September 2024 acknowledged that, in its view, the meeting of 14 July 2023 was not sufficient to remove Mr Barrett as ‘President’ of the National Party, this does not mean that Mr Barrett is still understood to perpetually occupy the office of ‘President’ of the National Party (as of mid-September 2024). The question must be posed: when was Mr Barrett ‘elected’ to the leadership of the National Party? How long does the term of a ‘President’ of the National Party last?

The Electoral Commission found that confusion exists over which edition of the party’s constitution was in force on or around 14 July 2023. The most recent copy held on file by the Electoral Commission dates from March 2019. Pertinent extracts from the party’s constitution answer some of the questions posed above, “the Party shall be administered by a National Directorate, consisting of, at minimum two persons, a Leader and a Treasurer of the Party”. This body, the National Directorate, “shall be elected by an Annual General Meeting of the Party from candidates present, by a majority of the members present… Annual General Meetings must take place not more than one and one half years apart.”

In his statutory declaration of 19 September 2023, Mr Barrett stated that “the only past or current National Directorate was elected by an Annual General Meeting in 2019”. Taken at face value and in his own words, Mr Barrett’s term as “leader” formally commenced on 16 November 2019. It must have expired after 18 months around May 2021. Whilst he subsequently claimed that repeated amendments to the constitution were unilaterally made by him to extend his term of office indefinitely, no record exists of this and Mr Barrett should be put to proof. The March 2019 document held by the Electoral Commission states that only a “majority vote… where more than 50% of [the National Directorate’s] membership are present” can amend the constitution. No meetings of the ‘National Directorate’ to amend the constitution were held during this period.

It must further be stated that no AGM, such as that reputedly in November 2019, was organised which was compliant with the constitution. The party’s constitution states that an AGM must allow candidates (“any person who is a member in good standing”) to present themselves for election to the National Directorate, which is elected “by a majority of the members present”. The National Directorate can be composed of up to twelve members. Members were not given any opportunity to present themselves as candidates for election to a National Directorate.

Would Mr Barrett be prepared to make a sworn declaration to affirm that an open vote was in fact held at an ‘AGM’ in Glasson, Co Westmeath in November 2019 at which all members were entitled to stand as a candidate for the National Directorate and that a fair vote was subsequently taken? And would he deny that rather than fulfil the clear obligations for a valid AGM set down in the constitution, that instead in November 2019 he proposed himself as leader and asked those present to raise their hands in favour of his leadership whilst asking objectors to leave the meeting, and repeated the same process for Mr Reynolds’ “confirmation” as deputy leader and asked those who objected to similarly leave the meeting, thus precluding members from having the ability to stand as candidates for a National Directorate of up to twelve members? If he were to make such a statutory declaration, he should do so in the knowledge that evidence presented which contradicts his claims would leave him open to committing perjury and result in jail time.

If this matter must be resolved by a court of law, these arguments will be pointedly made to Mr Barrett. He will be expected to demonstrate whither he derived his ‘legitimacy’ to act as leader and as an executive decision-maker. If he is found wanting in this regard, the consequences will certainly cause further disarray and unpleasantness.

…

In response to Mr Barrett’s ‘notice’ posted on Telegram on 13 September 2024, his spurious claims amount to very little and are unenforceable. The Electoral Commission’s stalemate ruling has no bearing on matters such as the operation of social media accounts. In response to his claim that National Party online channels had previously made “derogatory or libellous posts denigrating” his “behaviour or character”, he should understand that if challenged on any contentious points about his activities or character that the truth shall be the first defence. This includes the misspending of significant amounts of party funds by Mr Barrett, such as the transfer of party funds to his personal bank account and the use of party funds for irrelevant and selfish sundry expenses. From 2016 onwards, Mr Reynolds was understood to be the treasurer of the party and was the registered officer with SIPO. His assent was not given to any misuse of party funds.

…

The position of the National Party is that whilst the Electoral Commission’s decision is fundamentally flawed and unsatisfactory, we accept the fact that its decision exists and must, for now, be reckoned with.

We believe that the most reasonable path forward is that a properly conducted, fair and open Annual General Meeting of National Party members must be held within a reasonable timeframe. The most recent iteration of the party’s constitution held by the Electoral Commission (March 2019) should be used as the basic rulebook to elect a new National Directorate composed of up to twelve members, allowing candidates to freely stand and present themselves in a democratic election. The resulting National Directorate would then internally elect a new leader and treasurer, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. If necessary, an independent representative from the Electoral Commission could be invited to observe proceedings.

It is in the best interests of all sides if a consensus could be found that an AGM is the best and most reasonable step forward to resolve the current dispute and move beyond the enforced stalemate which is unsatisfactory to everyone except the regime. This path would sidestep the necessity of an unpleasant and lengthy court case at which many sticky questions would be raised that Mr Barrett would not like to be faced with.

The only people benefitting from protracted adjudications, prevailing uncertainties, ambiguities, and ill-will are those who have a stake in doing active damage to the Nationalist movement.

—

Ard Chomhairle an Pháirtí Náisiúnta