Simmons’ tenure as CJ started “wrong”, ended “wrong” and now seemingly will be remembered in the “wrong” way. The mileage which is being sought may have nothing to do with preserving a reputation. Clearly a bigger fish is in the periscope.

David wrote “Sir David’s work to setup the CCJ makes it acceptable”

Point taken.

The appointment of DS was a bad ideal by the BLP, however, the new C J’s appointment, also has some dark clouds hovering over it. He was acclaimed as the judicial massiah, who will clean up the court system, I’ve not seen any of this happening yet, plus I don’t think the average bajan is jumping for joy because of his appointment. As far as DS bearing all in public, a man has to do, what a man has to do, may it is to clear his consience. After all he is in the evening of his days and needs to offload some pressing matters, why should the DLP be afraid of what he has to say? freedom is speech is still part of our culture, so SPEAK Mr DS, some will like what you say others will not, the point is you would have gotten it off your chest.

As far as saying DT is no longer here to defend himself, is no excuse for not speaking out. There are many many issues that will come up within the next few months that whether here or not will cast DT in a different light than the independent voter had of him and this can change the tide in elections future towards the BLP. The onus is now on the DLP to be able to deal with this fallout, right now the way DS is handling the Clico Affair is embarrassing towards the DLP, there will be many more to come. The DLP needs a spokesman who can handle the bombs hurled at them by the BLP during the next elections or they are going to look really really bad.

David,

You well know that the Sir David’s contract was not extended (even though there was seemingly a precedent for renewing) because of spite and vindictiveness on the dead king’s part.

David
Stop jumping the gun, you can get disqualified, do you know what DS has to say? How do you know most bajans will not believe him? Let the man speak, then analyse what is said and draw YOUR OWN conclusions ands don’t try speaking for most of barbadians.

@The Scout

Like Sir David BU has an opinion why he would want to drop this matter on the public at this time. Until he does David and BU will opine on the matter until heart’s content, somewhat like you do.

On the subject of Bajan politicians writing books, Caswell wrote that Barrow wrote a cookbook, I think that some politicians can write about how they “cooked the books”.

I am not sure that I want to read any books by Bajan Politicians most of them are nonentities outside the Parliamentary gates. Post Independence the only Bajan leader who has had a long retirement where he could put his thoughts on paper was Sandiford and he has kept quiet, St. John wasn’t around as PM long enough to generate any interest by the public in any book.

I have it on good authority that OSA was going to pen his memoirs or some tome about his time in Office but that project has been shelved for the time being. Maybe he needs a ghost writer, do we have a volunteer?

Once upon a time, before the advent of blogs and other social media the appointment of a Chief Justice in Barbados was greeted with a ho hum. The men who had held these posts were usually career jurists who had served with some distinction in Barbados or some other area of the Colonial Empire.

That all changed when Owen Arthur decided to appoint his friend and long time senior stalwart of the then ruling BLP Gov’t to the post of CJ. The appointee had been a long serving MP who had had held positions of increasing responsibility up to and including the post of Attorney General in Barbados. The feed back from the blogs and later some of the media was immediate and ferocious, the PM was forced to defend his choice in the media but many people were decidedly unhappy with the selection of a politician who was so closely linked to the partisan exchanges that were the hallmark of political debate in the House of Assembly and wondered about the objectivity of an individual who in the recent past had been a staunch defender of Gov’t and Party policies in the charged atmosphere of the political realm.

When the Opposition DLP took over the reins of Gov’t, the new PM declined to extend the CJ’s tenure after he had reached the mandatory retirement age as was customary. If Press reports are correct the retired CJ will give his side of the story in a soon to be published memoir.

Stay tuned

I dont know what the hell is his problem.

He should not have been Chief Justice in the first place.
As the old Bajans say, if you start wrong you will end wrong and that is exactly what happen to him.

All of those years as CJ and the Judiciary in a mess. Now he is bringing documents. Let him bring them he is not the only one with documents. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Idiot!!!

This demonstrates how much of a Playing ground our nation’s political system and process has become. We have shams for politicians, and a redundant and leeching bureaucracy that is virtually aimless and powerless in terms of implementing the appropriate strategies and facilitating a base for innovation, diligence through service, and most of all COMPETENCE.
I find it all but too convenient for the Justice to lash out in such a manner in response to his tenure being halted by the government.

BETTER YET, I am appalled that it takes matters of personal vindications and objectives to fuel our politicians in order to “Uncover the flaws of the government” in this country, knowing full well that they were complacent parties (if not participants). What’s EVEN MORE shameful on part of the “Justice” was that he has made this issue so grandiose to a point that it is almost ceremonial in which he has placed his charges on “hold” and explains that he needs to “gather and allocate” the appropriate “documents” said to have severe implication that would vex the WHOLE of the nation.

This leaves me to ask then; Why pause your accusations and make promises to ‘follow up’ if the issue isn’t so pressing enough to come prepared with the APPROPRIATE and COMPELLING evidence immediately?

The answers come in variety, which at this point equates to nothing more that mere speculations on my part do to a lack of SOLID PROOF to back such explanations. Thus, I VERY INTRIGUED as to the type of “evidence” that the “Justice” has to show that would demonstrate hence back his claims of administrative mismanagement and misappropriations.

I bear warning to all Bajans that SHOULD the Justice indeed provide this ‘evidence’ he’s alluding to; that the CONTEXTUAL element should NOT be forgotten when assessing Justice Simmons’ “Proof” of GOVERNMENT MISHANDLING(S). For the only way that the Justice’s accusations to be considered even remotely as “HARD EVIDENCE” would require contents that would be highly undeniable (such as GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS that would otherwise DEMONSTRATE the level of conspiracies that Simmons charges to be “highly evident” in government.

I have my fair share of views on the current scope on the current government as a whole, not just the administration. So I am ESPECIALLY INTERESTED to see as to what the good Justice Simmons has to offer. Let’s pray that it is COMPELLING enough to get our nation’s politicians to get their act together and start motioning on part of the people and the nation’s future ASIDE FROM THEMSELVES.

Sargeant | April 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM |

Once upon a time, before the advent of blogs and other social media the appointment of a Chief Justice in Barbados was greeted with a ho hum. The men who had held these posts were usually career jurists who had served with some distinction in Barbados or some other area of the Colonial Empire.

That all changed when Owen Arthur decided to appoint his friend and long time senior stalwart of the then ruling BLP Gov’t to the post of CJ. The appointee had been a long serving MP who had had held positions of increasing responsibility up to and including the post of Attorney General in Barbados. The feed back from the blogs and later some of the media was immediate and ferocious, …………….

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barbados Free Press started in 2006 and Barbados Underground in 2007. T

The appointment was in 2001.

I think it is probably more accurate to say that Bajans seethed from the time of the appointment and the blogs gave a natural vent to their frustrations and anger 5 years later.

…… which contradicts age old wisdom that Bajans have short memories.

We don’t!!

@ Caswell.
One would have thought that a person like you that often dabbles in legal matters would not repeat the foolishness which other less wellinformed persons are wont to repeat . What do you mean by saying that none of the judgments of Sir David Simmons has ever been successfully appealed against ? As Chief Justice he sat WITH TWO OTHER JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ; are you trying to say that the other two with whom he sat had nothing to do with the judgments OF THE COURT ? The judgments are the JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT ; NOT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE PERSON WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT. You are really slipping Caswell ; pease do not repeat such foolishness even if you do it in an attempt to make an ordinary legal brain appear to be that of a colossus . David Simmons’ scholastic achievements as a lawyer show that he was really no great shakes . in your exuberance you should find out from your mentor what degree he got in the LLB and how many times he failed his Bar Exams . These would be FACTUAL statistics which you may also wish to publish .

Prodigal Son | April 15, 2012 at 10:08 PM |

There is never a dull moment in Bim. I understand today that the Dems are about to dump Hammie La but word is he may jump before being pushed out, clearing the way for Patrick Tannis, Chairman of the St Michael South East Constituency Council. See now why these councils were useless, packed with bare Dems.

Hammie boy, you have been used and now thrown under the bus. Your style of politics is extinct.

********************************

let me see if i get you on this one, the DEMS will push out a man who is a political heavy weight (in his own right) to put in Patrick? i say political heavy weight because no one has been able to do what Hammie has done and not only keep his seat but has kept his popularity up.

You are sayin the DEMS would do this? Well that would be an easy pick up seat for the BLP. What madness I hearing.

I know Patrick Tannis personally, outstanding smart guy but i think he would be the first to tell you that would be madness.

As a matter of interest…….is anyone able to point to any judgment of DS which demonstrates a clear political bias in favour of the BLP as a political party or as a government? I say ‘political’ bias meaning a judgment which simply cannot be justified on strong legal grounds.

@ robert ross.
I have no intention of picking any quarrel with you ; I addressed certain questions to CASWELL after he sought to place the former CJ in some category akin to that of a god . Why would you think that you must address remarks to me for CASWELL ? Caswell would certainly not be flattered to think that someone can come forward to speak on his behalf . You are really being very PREVIOUS . let me hear CASWELL ! NOT YOU ! When I wish to address you SPECIFICALLY I shall do so . Maybe you consider yourself some sort of public counsel who selfrighteously continues to raise your ” ABROAD ” education as some source of your relevance ; I have not found anything special about anything you have posted here . You should not delude yourself that you are entitled to have the last word on anything discussed on this blog . PEACE .

@ Observer

Seems neither of us have anything better to do

1. Speak when you’re spoken to: yes Master…but it doesn’t take away your pedantry….unlike you and the other I do not ‘boast’ about my education – I merely state that it’s ‘root’ gives me a different perspective – and that, in the substance, was a contribution to the debate – what have you contributed apart from lofty sneers, the standard rather sad sarcasm and pedantry? Of course you might take exception to my reference to Coke which was, I concede, cheeky……but then, perhaps you might not…..

2. On legitimate expectation – yes, of course – BUT in Barbadian terms it was a landmark decision. Why can’t you give credit to our people? And, with respect, I don’t see why you feel the need to give me a lecture on it. Is it insecurity or simply more pedantry? But see below.

3 On scholastic achievement – OK you haven’t read any of his papers –
Try “Aspects of Judicial Independence…etc” in 17 Caribbean LR 88. But what a strange view of the world you have – that judicial quality is co-terminous with marks.

4. On subjective clap-trap – sadly this is de rigeur in many of the blogs including your own. Now go read.

5. On facts speaking for themselves – I’ve invited you to look at them. Or would you prefer them suppressed because they are so self-evident in your view they may be ignored; and if so, to whose advantage?

Now: on one point we are agreed – well, if you can own up to it. Yes, of course all judgments are shaped by what Milsom calls the “rough free enterprise” in argument of counsel who have no especial vision beyond the winning of today’s case. You want the reference to that too? Caswell mentioned Denning’s books. In one, he, Denning, mentions the efforts of able counsel (Huw Laddie, later Laddie J) who argued successfully for the Anton Piller Order. So sure, enterprising counsel must take a lot of credit. But then the question is whether a particular judge is big enough and bold enough to buy into it….whether he is a “bold spirit” or a “timorous soul” – you want the reference to that one? BTW – on BU no-one has the last word except possibly David – but certainly not me and, DV, not you.

@ robert ross .
You obviously woke up with me on your mind and before giving yourself a chance to remove the cobwebs , you have jumped back into the fray . YOU referred to ” SCHOLASTIS WRTINGS of DS ” ; I asked you to refer me to THEM ; You refer me to ONE ESSAY in the Caribbean Law Review . I shall move on without further ado . Peace.

In my original post I promised my friend AMUSED that on sober examination of the issues I would take up the cudgel even if to swing without malice . It is therefore on this premise that i shall proceed to make a few comments in respect of the issue at stake.
It must be remembered that since Independence , EVERY CHIEF JUSTICE IN BARBADOS WAS APPOINTED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRIME MINISTER .The 1974 amendment which created the great controvercy was over the appointment of HIGH COURT JUDGES ; NOT THE CHIEF JUSTICE . When in 2001 the bye-election was called in the constituency of St Thomas to replace David Simmons who was being appointed Chief Justice from his position as sitting member for the constituency and the Attorney General of Barbados, Mr David Thompson the then leader of the opposition spoke most definatively of his objection to Mr Simmons’ appointment of CJ from his present political office . HE WOULD HAVE NONE OF IT . As fate would have it the same David Thompson now in office as Prime Minister was called upon in 2008 to give the now Sir David Simmons an extension of his tenure as CJ after he had reached the age of 70 years . Once again Mr Thompson spoke clearly and definatively on his position : He had opposed Simmons’ appointment as CJ ; he thought it was wrong in the first place ; he will not now endorse the wrong doing now that the discretion was his to exercise ; he was granting no such extension . That was as clear and consistent a position as any one could take .
It is clear that Simmons has not lived down this matter ; his ego has apparently taken over ; he has failed to move on . He will now have to decide on carrying out the threat to visit shock upon this country by making his disclosures with the sure and certain knowledge that there must be POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS . PEACE.

Errata. 2008 should read 2010.

I hope that they are not official documents.
Otherwise they hold implications for the Official secrets Act.

Why doesn’t he have the simple right to speak in a democracy? Ya all want to muzzle people into submission. This is all speculation and nobody knows what he’s going to say.
David Simmons, as does any citizen of this country, has the right to speak on any issue.
It’s called freedom of speech. FULL STOP!

@ Yathink
David Simmons, as does any citizen of this country, has the right to speak on any issue
It’s called freedom of speech. FULL STOP!
********************************
Its called cloaked yard fowl-ism ……..when all must be done to protect the blistered character of the entombed…MUCH ADO ABOUT nothings sets in and all the HIGH END yard fowl begin a peck….(even at each other)….its the silly season indeed…..and NO ONE SHOULD SPEAK without being blistered for fear of re surging a crooked legacy..CLICO..Alibaba…solution HUSH …silence is golden !

Sir David Simmons signaled his intention to write his memoir and that mere announcement has sent the politicians on this blog in full panic mode. They fear that his revelations would have some devastating effect on the outcome of the DLP’s election results and have started to attack him. Before some of them get heart attacks, I suggest that they should cool down and read what he said. They would realize that he intends to start writing when he has completed the commission of inquiry in Trinidad. As far as I am aware, the commission is still taking evidence. It would therefore be virtually impossible for him to start writing and have something ready by the time that elections are constitutionally due.

However, rest assured he is not that type of person. I well recall when I was his campaign manager, I came into possession of a document that if released would have destroyed his opponent’s chances. When I showed it to him, he said that he would not use it since he could beat his opponent without doing so. Observer, you can correct me if I am wrong but I think that you were present for that conversation. Don’t panic any further, your identity is safe with me.

I would like to point out that David Thompson, as Leader of the Opposition, was consulted about the appointment of David Simmons as Chief Justice, and he gave the appointment his blessing. I was only after that fact that he realized the potential for political mischief and he made full use of it to good effect. I can speak to the refusal to extend the appointment but I would be out of place. You see I know more than even Sir David on this issue because I spoke to my friend, David Thompson, about it and not from the grave as some of you claim to have done.