Malaysia was subject to the British Empire. However, as a consitutional monarchy in its own right, it did not share the same status as the British Empire per se.

I have also got to ask exactly what job Dale Marshall had in mind. Appears to me that Mr Gibson has been under consideration for some years for the CJ job. And the only objection now is motivated by political mileage. Sad when the interests of the people are made secondary to those of their political servants.

It seems that Dale Marshall is rather artful about the conversation he had with Mr. Gibson, but the paper also reported that Gibson was also being courted by Owen Arthur. So now Marshall wants us to believe that he contacted him simply to ask him about his long term plans…..

Now if he had met him at a reception I would chalk it up to small talk but when there is contact via cellphone I think the conversation would be on a deeper level unless Marshall is prone to calling up people and ask “What’s happening?”

Political gamesmanship

Ping Pong

You have made my point.

US Supreme Court judges are vetted to a point by the Administration that appoints them i.e. there are multiple questionnaires, questions, past papers, judgements, opinions et al. any personal information that would embarrass the Administration is checked…BUT when it comes to confirmation most questions are of a political nature and are of the “gotcha” variety.

As for politics, Democrat Presidents select Democratic judges and vice versa for Republicans, more often than not their rulings are according to their to their political affiliation.

Ask Al Gore

If he a honest man i think then backlog of case will be speed up. Also the al barrack issue may require resolving then

If as some are trying to argue under the current law Mr Gibson qualifies in the spirit of the law why then does the Government see it necessary to return to Parliament in order to amend the very section of the law which deems him inelligeble?Just a thought.

It is interesting to read all the complimentary comments from the legal eagles in Barbados who all say Gibson is a competent man for the job but the law….. If the law is showing itself to be an ass here by blocking a competent Bajan from doing the job isn’t that good grounds to amend the damn law?

Recently the President of the Law Society of Trinidad addressed the Barbados Bar Association and rendered a stinging indictment on our backlog of cases in the court system. Martin Daly stated unequivocally that to process case files in a business as usual manner will not solve the problem. Now answer the question, how can we believe our Judiciary was administered efficiently in recent years and nothing* of significance done to resolve this problem? A problem which has had the effect of slowing down how justice is dispensed.

David,

Take a look at the faces of the CJ’s in Barbados over the last 50 years and tell me what you see.

Exactly.

@David. All the best known counsel in Barbados, EXCEPT those who think (or thought) that they would be offered the job of CJ (and it turns out there were quite a few) are solidly behind the appointment of Marston Gibson. The work of the courts has ground to a shuddering halt. There are 3 actions, either filed or pending, against 3 different judges for failure to carry out their offices. This is unheard of. The Registrar has been placed on notice of several pending actions against the Registry. This too is completely unheard of. The situation in the courts is now so dire that it presents an Everest for the new CJ to climb – and none of the local legal yard fowls could manage it. For actions to be brought against judges it means that the lawyers themselves are fed up and, frankly, will not stand for it any longer. You quote Martin Daly. If any one of those cases against judges was appealed to the CCJ, then there is every likelihood that a ruling would be made against the judge. What sort of a signal would that send to overseas investors?

As a nation, we cannot afford to allow the mess perpetrated on us by David and Marie Simmons to continue. But so deep is the mess (and I am not overstating this) that it requires a man of unique ability at the helm to turn it around. Marston Gibson is such a man.

It has also been said that “the law is the law”. The law is, in its highest and purest sense, a living, breathing entity that changes to reflect the needs of its society. The good of the society is the ruling imperative of any legal framework. You will notice that I don’t say the “majority” of society, but society as a whole. If the law, therefore, needs to be changed to ensure that timely and efficient justice is given to the people, indeed, that the now-dead justice system is revived, then the law must either be changed, or it is indeed an ass. Note that I say “If the law needs to be changed.” I expressly deny any such need to appoint Mr Gibson – however, I defer to the caution of my friend, Anthony.

So it is clearly time to put aside:

(a) the images of Dale Marshall making an extra-expensive overseas telephone call from his cellphone (instead of a cheaper landline) for which we, the taxpayers, paid, solely for a chit chat with Marston Gibson and a “by-the-way” enquiry as to Gibson’s long term plans;
(b) Owen Arthur making similar enquiries (by which time he had abundant evidence of his gross mistake in allowing David Simmons to finish off the courts as his wife had finished off the Registry);
(c) the image that we are expected to believe of David Thompson, Freundel Stuart and Mia Mottley discussing the appointment of Marston Gibson, all three of them senior lawyers, without researching and discussing the law involved (and this is the most stupid image of all);
(d) of Owen Arthur and his gang, post Mia Mottley, realizing that the debunking of Mia had placed them way beyond the pale with the electorate, choosing not to support the election of Mr Gibson and the revival of the justice system, in the National Interests. Or is it because a fully functional justice system would demonstrate to the electorate how badly let down and betrayed they have been?

Time to move on. Very clearly we have a new Chief Justice and he has a hell of a job ahead of him. I personally intend to observe with great care the process of this law change. I want to see exactly which MPs try to obstruct the resurrection of the Barbados Justice System. I suspect that many Bajans will be doing the same as me. And we will deal with these obstructionists in due course – at the next elections.

@Crusoe

Your examples are extreme.

When reference is made to old boys club it does not have to be about questioning the credentials.

@jeff C
u want the post?

After all the usual pretentious “bush law” from Amused, Stephen Alleyne’s column in today’s Advocate seems to be spot on.

How about appointing Gibson as a judge and promote the most compitent senior judge to the position of Acting C.J while Gibson gets his feet wet as he relearns the system here. After a year or so that Acting C.J can retire, then Gibson succeeds him, if he proves himself. Maybe, it’s another case of the late David Thompson ruling from somewhere in the great beyond. Please give us an insight of what else to expect. Is P.M Stuart a faithful desciple of David Thompson,( this would be a 360) or is he just tagging on to keep his pick

@Spratt. Simmons-esque to the end. And you fool nobody.

@Checkit-out | January 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM. The answer to your questions:

Take the job and serve the justice system of your country of birth to the best of your considerable ability, secure in the knowledge that, whether they admit it or not, BOTH sides of the political divide think you are the best man for the job and BOTH have courted you at one time or another for the job of CJ. And when someone raises the issue of why you, a licensed member of the Barbados Bar of over 20 years standing was chosen and the law changed to remove meritless objections, reflect that after all Simmons was moved from attorney general to chief justice without any pause whatsoever and unless you display political bias, any manufactured objection to your appointment will pale in comparison. Reflect that after a few years of resurrecting the judicial system from its demise under the Simmons administration, no one will care about these manufactured and curiously Simmonsian (which is another way of saying “meritless”) objections. Forget the Simmonsian objections by reflecting that they come from someone living in a glass house who cannot help pelting rock stones in an effort to shore up the dead and gone legacy he has left.

Most of all, reflect that the justice system of the country of your birth needs you to bring timely and even-handed justice to its people – that is to say to the little man or woman in the street for whom, at the moment, justice is the province of the rich, the privileged and the politicians and has little room for the poor and disenfranchised, unless they get lucky and find one of that rare breed of lawyer for whom justice is a vocation and not a cash cow. Reflect that you are in the position to ensure that justice is for ALL.

THEN TAKE THE JOB!!!

Amused
Yes, we do need a person who can shake up the justice system in Barbados and from all my investigations Mr Gibson appears to be suited for the job. However, there is one hiccup, the gentleman DOES NOT QUALIFY. There are many persons who can fit many positions in this country who do not qualify and they are overlooked. What makes this even more serious is that we are tinkering with the law to qualify a chosen person for a position that as far as I am aware was not advertised. Had the position been advertised and no suitable person was found, then we may think of choosing the next best person if it even means bending the laws a bit. As we start changing laws to suit certain people, soon we will lose the respect of the law. Let’s say we found a teacher who was exceptional but was not a top graduate and the position of Principal of Harrison’s College was vacant, would we change the rules just for that person? There is a reason why some advertisements ask for certain qualifications, therefore if we change the law for anyone person, how can you then say someone else is good but not qualified? If we continue to trivialise the law, we can be looking at a lawless society.

It appears fairly clear, although I am not a mind reader, but a resonable person can surmise, that the reason that the framers of the legislation in question, deliberately referred to ‘Commonwealth’ exactly because throughout the Commonwealth there was a common legal base and case law, thus anyone coming into the position therefrom comes with a sound understanding of the legal principles and case law, that will be utilised in assessing case precedents and delivering judgements therefrom.

I do not know why the writer of the article was so hesitant to surmise this, he has come to the correct conclusion.

The Legislation is specific, as I said.

Sorry, last post was to be my last word, this is now. Lol.

Actually far as the law goes isn’t she the Queen of Barbados as well ?

@anthony: “Actually far as the law goes isn’t she the Queen of Barbados as well ?

I thought that job was taken… By Mara?

Confusion reigns….

lol Chris . Mara is the people choice for Queen of St.John.
Yes it does seem she is still the Queen of Barbados.

For all the supposed progress of Barbados, Barbados is still a “banana republic’.

Imagine that laws have been set in place to govern, and maintain some semblance of order and low and below you could change the laws at your whims and fancy. No wonder the young people doing as the like. If the people who make the laws ain’t got no respect for the law why should the young people.

Nobody is denying that the man is eminently qualified, but he is not eligible for the position because he has not practiced law in the country for 15years. That is the requirement.

The persons who are suggesting that the law meant that any body who lives in Rwanda can be eligible for the position because Rwanda is part of the commonwealth, is just as much ass as the law is. That certainly could not be the intent of the framers of the law.

@Crusoe , i agree with you ,the man teaches law but has no practical experience, imagine a man teaching somebody how to drive but don’t know how to himself. .LOL

@Check -it-out, agreed! why would a man of integrity allow a government to change a law simply to accommodate him. He cannot be naive enough to believe that he would not be beholden to the present government.

@Amused! i normally enjoy your elucidations on the law, but this time I hear a bias coming through in your writings, and i am surprised. This issue is not about any party, this is about the law as it is written.

BARBADOS IS A REAL BANANA REPUBLIC. FA TRUT !

Come on Chris. America does much more than its fair share of really stupid things but I would not be surprised if Barbados is unique in this case and will outdo even the USA. Changing a law to allow ONE man to qualify for a job as the CJ!!!. I don’t think even the US would do that, irrespective of their penchant for changing laws willy nilly.

Honestly, I would prefer the Government to follow “Amused’s” earlier advice and opt for leaving the Law intact and thereby take its chances on withstanding any future challenges re. illegitimacy.

Sometime in the future it could then amend the Act to allow a more rational interpretation of the qualifications required for future aspirants to the post (not the current aspirant). Something along the lines of 15 years relevant experience in countries in which the common law is practiced, at least 10 of which must be in one or more Commonwealth countries.

In addition, it seems to me that the things which almost everyone expects that Mr. Gibson will do better than anyone else are really administrative functions. What is his track record on administration? Could the expected improvements be effected in some other way than how they are now envisaged to be implemented by Mr. Gibson?

For Mr Gibson to be effective in this post, he must have the support of his staff, my gut feeling is that he will not get that support. Therefore Mr Gibson would be very desperate for this job that he would accept it knowing that a dark cloud hangs over his head. Again I say, we are playing politics with the law and the “bad-boys” is watching, this stupid partisan attitude can be the downfall of this country. Already we have a rift between the two top men in the Police Force, now we’re having a wrangle over the post of C., what next, are we going to have a war over who should be P.M? or what Min Mara Thompson should get? or who should be Dep P.M? where will it end ? in the mean time the devient crew is planning their strategy. Wake up Barbados, stop the infighting and start putting this country back on an even keel. Where is our PRIDE and INDUSTRY?

It seems like Mr.Gibson will have to do like GP and stay where he is wanted and respected.