In what was a sitting of the House of Assembly intended to deal primarily with uncontroversial amendments to the Supreme Court Act, a former attorney general yesterday launched a blistering attack on judges and the judicial system in the country.
Independent Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town Tennyson Wells, who served as AG in the Ingraham Administration, charged that some judges are making decisions not based on the evidence of cases, but based on who the lawyers are before them or what law firms they are from.
As a result, Mr. Wells claimed many Bahamians are being denied access to justice and many members of the Bar are disgruntled and frustrated.
But he did not name any judges.
“The judges know when they are doing wrong; the defendant knows when his rights are being abused and the claimant knows when his rights are being abused,” Mr. Wells said. “The lawyer, the client and witnesses, whoever they are, should not be a factor anymore. It is the evidence. He should decide on the evidence and the law alone.”
Mr. Wells also charged that persons who cannot afford to appeal cases continue to be denied justice.
Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson, who noted the seriousness of the allegations, urged Mr. Wells to present any evidence he may have to support his claims.
“We note the rules of this place and it is a most untenuous position to put any member of the judiciary in when imputations are being passed around, the system is undermined, their character is being undermined and they cannot defend themselves,” she said.
“This is not fair and that is not the right thing to do.”
Mrs. Maynard-Gibson pointed to the House rule that prohibits any member from referring to the conduct of certain officials – including members of the judiciary – unless there is a substantive motion before the House.
But the Bamboo Town MP insisted that he was talking about the judicial system.
Mr. Wells also warned that in the future if the situation continues he would expose names in parliament.
He said that it is a serious situation when senior lawyers are refusing to go before certain judges.
“There should always be a certain camaraderie between the bench and the Bar,” said Mr. Wells, who added that when he was attorney general, he was not aware that this situation existed.
“A practice has developed in this country where judges feel that they are beyond reproach. You can’t criticise them and no system, whether you’re the prime minister, whether you’re the chief justice, whether you’re the president of the Court of Appeal or any other judge should be above and beyond scrutiny.”
Persistent in her statements that Mr. Wells was out of order to make his criticisms, the attorney general pointed out that Article 96 of the constitution refers to the manner in which a judge may be removed from office.
“If the honourable member wishes to complain about behaviour that might lead to that course of action again, the honourable member having held the high office of attorney general knows the manner in which these comments-may be taken,” she said.
Mr. Wells said because he loves the system so much, he doesn’t want to see it abused.
“There are hundreds of litigants out there who have been to court in the last three or four years who are very unhappy with the process and also with the way the cases were dealt with,” he charged. “In most cases they cannot even appeal it because it is so expensive.”
In his contribution to debate on a bill to amend the Supreme Court Act, Montagu Member of Parliament Brent Symonette said he had hoped that there would have been a more comprehensive review of the legislation.
Mr. Symonette also said he was concerned that it is still taking too long for many cases to be heard.
The attorney general responded to that concern saying the government will soon announce a pilot project to ensure swift justice. It will involve the computerisation of the court registries and closer collaboration among the police, the Attorney General’s Office, and the courts, she said, adding that the project will be completed by this time next year.
She also reminded that a Legal Aid Commission is presently conducting its work as the government seeks to put in place a system of legal aid.
The bill debated yesterday would cause two amendments to be made to the Supreme Court Act. The first would eliminate the requirement for a senior justice to reside in Freeport, where there are two justices who hold the title of senior justice.
The second amendment would remove the words “Royal Crown” from the Supreme Court seal. Mrs. Maynard-Gibson said that would be reflective of the Bahamas being a sovereign nation.
By: Candia Dames, The Bahama Journal
