In a decision delivered on Wednesday, the CCJ described Chastanet’s appeal as “legally misconceived” and an “unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.” The ruling closes a decade-long chapter of political and legal wrangling that many observers have criticized as wasteful and politically motivated.

The case stemmed from the importation of Dr. Hilaire’s Land Rover Discovery, which had been the subject of customs-related allegations first raised during Chastanet’s tenure as Prime Minister. The CCJ, affirming the judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, found that Chastanet’s arguments lacked both logic and legal substance.

In a sharp rebuke, the Court noted, “It would be nonsense, on that premise, for the court to order the Comptroller to reinstate the prosecution… According to the Appellant, it was not his to discontinue; therefore, it could not be his to reinstate.”

The justices further criticized the extensive time wasted on the matter, remarking that it had absorbed nearly 100 pages of judicial reasoning across three courts for a claim that could have been resolved far more succinctly.

Political commentators have interpreted the CCJ’s language as a clear indictment of Chastanet’s repeated use of the courts to pursue political rivals. The Court’s frustration over the misuse of judicial time appears to echo growing public fatigue over the former Prime Minister’s combative political style.

Reacting to the judgment, Dr. Ernest Hilaire said the ruling represents yet another failed attempt by Chastanet to tarnish his reputation.

“Allen Chastanet, for almost ten years, has spared no effort in trying to destroy my reputation. He has failed at every turn. He has failed again today,” Hilaire wrote in a statement.

He added pointedly, “I encourage Allen Chastanet to stop the unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.”

The CCJ’s decision not only vindicates Dr. Hilaire but also reaffirms the independence of the Customs Department and the limits of ministerial authority, a significant reminder of the importance of institutional integrity in governance.

For Chastanet, the judgment is yet another blow to his political credibility and raises renewed questions about his judgment, priorities, and respect for public institutions.