In the last week or so, Nation “journalist” Tim Slinger wrote a report on the fed-up Barbados Bar. The basis of his report was a letter from Barbados Bar Association (BBA) Chairman, Leslie Haynes Q.C. to Acting Chief Justice Sherman Moore.

According to Leslie Haynes, “As president of the Bar, it is my duty to inform you of the general feeling of the Bar, that the wheels of our judicial system are grinding to a halt.” Haynes subsequently released a copy of this letter to the Nation.

BU has held back on commenting on this matter lest we be dragged across the coals by the legal beavers who frequent this blog space. The report could hardly be done justice until a smidgen of investigative journalism was practiced. It is no secret how BU feels about the local Fourth Estate and by extension the Nation’s capacity to engage “investigative” journalism approaches; a prerequisite to being a professional journalist.

BU has learned that Leslie Haynes acted without the consent of the BBA in both writing and releasing the letter and it forces BU to examine his possible motives.

Let us start with a concern which has always lurked in our mind. How is it that Leslie Haynes (a competent, but no more than competent, lawyer who most would have thought could never have risen above being a “senior junior counsel”) became a QC in the first place. To what does he owe his rapid advancement? Might it have to do with his close blood tie to Owen Arthur’s right-hand man, Victor Hinkson. For those who do not recall, Hinkson was one of those many Arthur Consultants  who earned about $1 000 a month,  to quote Arthur ‘I paid him $1 000 to help him out’. The long running debate that former Chief Justice David Simmons was an ill advised appointment may yet be worthy of further discussion. We have to continue to learn from history.

BU is reliably informed that Leslie Haynes was never even considered for recommendation by the BBA to be admitted to the Inner Bar. That decision was a gift, without recommendation or advice, to Leslie Haynes by Owen Arthur; a decision worthy of explanation to Barbadians.

The study of our court system that Mr Haynes complains was not provided to the BBA was, in fact, completed in January of 2010 and was officially* delivered, not to Chief Justice Moore, but to the then Chief Justice, Sir David Simmons, prior to his “retirement” in April 2010, about 7 months ago. Mr Haynes may try to suggest that the BBA did not know of it and its contents, even if they had not officially been sent a copy – so why not complain 7 months ago? Why now about a report that pillories Simmons, not Moore.

Since Chief Justice Moore is merely a night watchman until the top legal post is taken over by Chief Justice Elect Marston Gibson in the New Year, what possible motivation can the Arthur-elected QC have for such at attack at this point and so belatedly and reportedly without the sanction of the BBA, on the spurious and unsatisfactory basis that he is Chairman (BBA)? And why send it to the Nation?

Why is the Arthur political yardfowl, Leslie Haynes, choosing this time to complain about the admittedly parlous state of the judicial system, when it was the Arthur government itself, ably assisted by Arthur’s CJ and former Attorney General David Simmons who, through the nepotistic appointment of incompetents in key judicial positions, created the mess in the first place? And why make an issue now, on the eve of the arrival of a new broom (Gibson) chosen by our late and present prime ministers (Thompson and Stuart) to sweep away the debris and mess  put in place by the Arthur government and to enforce the new integrity legislation?

As for Chief Justice Moore, our investigations show that he has done all he can, as a night watchman, to correct and eradicate the errors, omissions and general ineptitude of his predecessor, Sir David Simmons. The blaming of Moore in the Nation is nothing more than an attempt at clearing the blame for Sir David Simmons and his elector, Owen Arthur. The BBA membership generally agrees that Moore has done an excellent job, given the pitch prepared for him. The raising of this issue would also appear to be an attempt to lay the foundation of censure against Marston Gibson when he takes office, by one generally considered by his peers to be unworthy to be admitted to the Inner Bar. Some maybe be aware that the only criticism offered of Gibson so far has been his inexperience practicing in our system.

No country can survive without a strong and independent and efficient judiciary. Without that, there is a certainty of anarchy and dictatorship.