Former Attorney General Tennyson Wells launched a scathing attack against judges for favouritism and corrupt legal practices in his address in the House of Assembly yesterday.
Mr Wells said that no-one, be it either the prime minister or chief magistrate, should feel as if they are above the system.
But he said there was a troubling practice developing where judges felt as if they were beyond reproach.
Mr Wells, an attorney, stressed that he was not generalising his statement to include all judges. He said, however, that those who are guilty of such infractions “know who they are”.
“A judge’s duty is to apply the law based on the evidence that is placed before him. That is his duty – his sworn duty. Not the lawyer who appears before him. Not the client who appears before him, whether he’s a family member or if he’s not a family member,” he said.
During his address, Mr Wells was repeatedly interrupted by current Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Allyson Maynard-Gibson, who questioned the extent to which Mr Wells was going to take his address.
“I’m not going to call anybody’s names,” Mr Wells said, “I am talking about the principle. But all of those who are doing it know.”
Again Mrs Maynard-Ciibson interjected, reminding Mr Wells of the rules of the House, asking him not to attack anyone outside the chamber who could not defend themselves.
“I understand what the MP for Pinewood (Mrs Maynard Gibson) says,” Mr Wells responded, “but when these things happen, they should be exposed. When you have senior lawyers of 20 years standing who won’t go before certain judges, what does that tell you?” he asked.
Mr Wells said that the lawyer, his client and whoever the witnesses are should not matter before a judge. The case, he said, should be decided on the evidence and law alone.
“What I am hearing from a number of lawyers – many dozens is that there is a feeling out there now that they are not getting that – that they are getting short changed.
“And if we don’t correct this, we will regret it. And if we don’t regret it, our children and grandchildren will regret it.
“You see, because it is the process that is very important in the system – very important. The procedure, is as important as the substantive law itself.
“And if you are going to deny justice based on a lack of procedure alone, Mr Speaker, I think we ought to do something about it,” he said.
On a point of order, Mrs Maynard-Gibson again interjected. She hoped Mr Wells was not saying that judges are not ruling on the evidence of cases, and again advised him of the rules of the House.
“Again, I am speaking of the principles,” Mr Wells said.
“I want to make it clear I am not talking about all the judges, just a couple of them – I want to make that clear. But their oath demands that all of them must decide their cases based on the evidence.
“Quite a number of them, when they retire from the bench, you see every one of them with these big law firms. What does that tell you?” he asked.
Mr Wells also pointed out that it was unfortunate that in the Bahamas there had developed a mindset that a person could and should not question or criticise a judge.
“If you put a judge on the bench and the judge is corrupt and he is aged 50, or she is aged 50, and he has to be there until 67, you know what damage they can do to your society in that 15 or 17 years?”
“These are serious matters and they should not be taken lightly. As a former Attorney General I would ﾠnot stand up here and make these statements if I did not know what I was taking about. I would not do it.
“Every person who has ever dealt with me over the years knows I would not do that unless I had serious, serious cause for concern,” he said.
By PAUL G TURNQUEST, Tribune Staff Reporter
