“There is no seriousness about the process,” declared Maurice Glinton, who was one of the attorneys who sealed a major victory last week when the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional.
“This Court of Appeal dispenses of judgments pretty much on a weekly basis. I know they would not have had time to study issues on appeal. It’s a hit or miss proposition. We deserve better.”
Mr. Glinton, who was the special guest on the Love 97 programme “Jones and Company”, agreed that he was indicting the Court of Appeal “and the whole judicial structure”.
In the ruling delivered last week, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said it cannot accede to the suggestion that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional challenge to the mandatory death sentence, saying that the majority of the Court of Appeal “fell in error”.
The high court in London also said in that ruling that it regretted that it was not able “to enjoy the benefit of the Court of Appeal’s opinions on the important issues at stake”.
Mr. Glinton also pointed to another recent ruling made by the Privy Council, in which the Lords said that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to re-instate an appeal it had struck out did not do justice to the appellants.
The Privy Council; in the case of Arcadi and Alexandre Gaydamak, also said that the Court of Appeal erred in directing that the applicants must prove that their case has a chance of success before it could be reinstated.
In this particular matter, the Court of Appeal struck out the Gaydamak appeal because no one had showed up to court on the appointed date to represent the appellants; but the Privy Council said the Court of Appeal determined that the lower court was wrong on this procedural matter.
Mr. Glinton said these are only two examples of the Court of Appeal “abdicating” its responsibility.
He again said the judicial system must be indigenized if justice is to be served.
“When you live in a country like The Bahamas where you have a revolving door of foreign judges of unknown abilities, who really only come here on a point of reference perhaps on another foreign judge who is here, they are here not really to remediate The Bahamas’ constitutional position; they’re here to lend whatever service they can to the government of The Bahamas,” Mr. Glinton charged.
“They don’t want to get involved in what they regard as political issues. They are inclined to see all constitutional issues as nothing more than an invitation for them to engage in politics.”
He charged that the country’s judiciary and its progress and development have been arrested for a long time because of foreign judges on the bench. “Lawyers seldom want to get into court and deal with these kinds of (constitutional) matters because judges are inclined to see it as trying to seduce them into taking issue with the very government that appointed them,” Mr. Glinton said.
He said foreign judges “do not reflect the full character of this country”.
The judiciary is the third arm of government,” Mr. Glinton pointed out. “To the extent that judges are non citizens, what qualifies them – as persons who cannot vote even – to participate in government?”
BY CANDIA DAMES, Bahama Journal
