In a statement from Trinidad extracts which are published in the Nation and Barbados Today, the Chief Justice has said:
“I want to find out what is the Bar’s plan to tackle the growing instances of attorney dishonesty. The twitter in Barbados is that there are several attorneys who are in the same position as the attorney whose case is presently pending before the Court of Appeal,” he said.” [BU’s EMPHASIS]
BU stands to be corrected, but does the CJ not chair the panel of the Court of Appeal before whom this case, recently highlighted by BU has commenced and been adjourned?
If this is indeed the case, for the Chief Justice Gibson (CJ) to allude to it publicly in any way, far less in a press release/statement, is highly improper if he is sitting on the hearing. It is highly improper for any judge to allude in public to a case on which he is sitting – such statements can and must only come from the Bench. And the CJ, not only was not on the Bench, but out of jurisdiction. However, for the CJ, who is head of the Court of Appeal, to make such a statement, especially to the Press, is not only gross misconduct, but brings the courts into disrepute. That is grounds for dismissal from office.
BU poses our concern to the Prime Minister – how much more does he intend to allow of Marston Gibson to bring the courts further and further into disrepute, usurping the powers and prerogatives of the executive and generally making Barbados into an international laughing stock, before he, as PM, give him the sack. There are now abundant grounds to do so. Swift action taken now would reassure the international financial community that Barbados is determined to cure our terminally-ill justice system. Procrastination will merely confirm the international view that Barbados has become a banana republic. As we said before, PM, we have ears to hear and we are listening.
What really bothers many, is the total lack of comprehension that Marston Gibson has displayed as to what his job is. His suggestion that he and the BA will work things out. We refuse to believe that representations have not been made on many occasions by the BA on the matter of failing to call and constitute a meeting of the Judicial Council in contravention of Section 93 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 117A, of the Laws of Barbados. For the BA to even consider arising from their habitual lethargy to take a vote to sue the CJ means that he has had countless requests to comply, and has refused or ignored them.
He will work it out? He was brought here to fill the role of CJ, not to stand for political office as some judges have to in the States. And yet without exception everything he has done since taking office has been political in nature, the agenda of which has been directed solely towards the Marston Gibson Political Party. His recent statement is political – he tries, unsuccessfully, to divert attention on to other areas of concern, like teefin lawyers and the matter of BA membership, the first of which is none of his business unless and until the matter comes before the courts and the second is none of his business, unless and until the BA files legal proceedings before the court against the dissenting lawyers. And Marston Gibson would never have taken the time and effort to tear himself away from the cocktail circuit around the world, this time Trinidad where doubtless the CCJ is laughing at him, and us, behind his back, unless politics, not concern for the justice system, made it essential.
Of course, he trots out the tired old chestnut of ADR. The same ADR he has been going on about ad nauseam for the last three years, as if it is the Holy Grail of jurisprudence. ADR is something that can only work if all parties agree to what is suggested in the mediation sessions by the mediator. If they do not agree, the matter comes before the courts. In any case, compulsory ADR prior to filing court proceedings, can only really be effectively used in matters of family law. But the CJ trots it out every time he needs to cover up for his incompetence and complaints about the backlog, as if it were the universal judicial panacea, which it is not, nor can it ever be. This time, he has trotted it out in relation to the BA’s possible legal action against him. BU has been made aware that proceedings in ADR are confidential and without prejudice – so Gibson now seeks to have the case decided, as it were, secretly and away from the eyes and knowledge of the Bajan taxpayers who pay his salary and his multitudinous perquisites and foreign trips.
It is like watching a not-too-bright young lawyer just out of university trying to run what is in effect the largest law firm in Barbados and turning that law firm into a standing joke both at home and abroad, at the expense of the very people who finance it – and Marston Gibson has the nerve to talk about teefin lawyers as he presides over the wasting of public funds. In a private law firm, irrespective of size, Marston Gibson would be given the order of the boot. BU fails to see why that is not being done by the chief executive, the Prime Minister. After all, when the opposition was in government, they gave us David Simmons and to date have not made any attempt to apologise. The PM changed the Constitution to give us Marston Gibson and it has clearly not worked out t’all, t’all, t’all. For the PM to remove him, far from giving political ammunition to the opposition, would demonstrate to the electorate that the PM has the balls it takes to make a difference – and the opposition is hardly in any position to say anything, given their appointment of David Simmons.
But it gets worse. Take another look at Gibson’s June 19 2004 letter to Barry Gale as published by BU. The game here is spot the error. In his letter, Gibson refers to Section 45(3) of the Legal Professions Act. CONTRARY to what Gibson has said, that section states:
“(3) A Practising Certificate issued to an attorney-at-law shall be of no effect until the annual subscription required by section 44 has been paid.”
Section 44, the relevant part of it, states:
“(1) An attorney-at-law shall, on each occasion on which a Practising Certificate is issued to him, pay to the Bar Association the annual subscription which is or would be payable by him under section 45 as a member of the Association, and shall thereupon (if not already a member), notwithstanding anything in any by-law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation of the Association, become by virtue of this section and without election or appointment by the Association, a member of the Association.”
Therefore, to any reasonably cognitive person, except apparently our honourable chief justice, this would be interpreted as meaning that for any attorney to practice law, he must be issued with a Practicing Certificate (by the executive) only after which can he join the BA. But the Constitution specifically provides the right of association or NON-association, except in specified classes, of which the practice of law is NOT one.
And at the end of the day, what happened to Gibson’s June 19 letter by which (presumably by copy to her, but she is not listed as having been copied on his letter) he instructed the Registrar to inform non-BA members of his decision? The Registrar informed him that she would not do it, as she did not have the authority to do any such thing. She refused! Now, we will wait to see if the judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court similarly refuse to accept Gibson’s instructions, on the basis that he lacked the authority to issue such instructions in the first place.
Meanwhile, last week, Mr Hal Gollop QC, who is not a member of the BA, appeared in the Court of Appeal and the panel was chaired by none other than Gibson himself. Mr Gollop QC is not a member of the BA and is on Gibson’s list provided to him by Barry Gale. And did Gibson refuse Mr Gollop audience? NO!In fact, Gibson even issued a few orders in the case, before it was adjourned.
It is appropriate at this time to revisit the matter of the BA’s Disciplinary Committee, or as many people refer to it instead, the “Get Out of Jail Card for Teefin Lawyers” (“GOJ” for short). The Act requires that the members of the GOJ be nominated by the Council of the BA. Yet, instead of nomination as is clearly and indisputably required by the Act, the BA has chosen, in defiance of law, to elect at AGMs the members of the GOJ, so, instead of it being a body nominated by the BA council to hear the complaints of the general public, it is instead a matter of political lobbying, a practice close to the American heart of our Bajan born CJ. After the last elections, cash and favours for votes was on the minds of all Bajans. Is there anyone who thinks for one moment that the same sort of thing does not happen with the GOJ? Might this not explain why so very few teefin lawyers are brought to justice?
So, Prime Minister, you are a senior lawyer, but our question is put to you as Prime Minister. How long are we going to have to put up with a CJ whose paucity of knowledge of the law and the rules, guidelines and limitations of the justice system has now brought the courts into extreme national and international disrepute? For, if the CJ does not know and is incapable of doing his job, how in hell can you expect anyone else to? And how can you tempt foreign investors to any country when the justice system is that of a banana republic? We have ears to hear, Prime Minister, we are listening most attentively.
If foot is a wooden leg , then that is easy to do
What a commess, like the Trinis say. Someone said to me today, things cannot get any worse in the Judiciary, in the government or in any of the other meltdowns now taking place in Barbados…let’s hope commonsense prevails and things get better.
@Deeds. Not easy. Splinters in mouth. Very painful I am told.
The PM cannot remove a Chief Justice from office.
“Someone said to me today, things cannot get any worse in the Judiciary, in the government or in any of the other meltdowns now taking place in Barbados…let’s hope commonsense prevails and things get better.”
I hate to be the one to tell you that things are progressing very well on the GETTING WORSE front. PHD(Piled Higher & Deeper) Worrell this afternoon presented the latest financial bad news with his usual sugar coating.
I would like to think there are Political individuals in Barbados with Common Sense, however they are in short supply, possibly left this world with the dinosaur extinction.
everyday the dysfunctional fraternity of lawyers comes up with grounds for the dismissal of the CJ…….knowing that these arguments have been heard by various judges and in the presence of a jury of his his peers within the BU court room time and time again..there is enough reason to believe that the evidence presented and the grounds whereby these arguments have been laid out are not substantive enough ,,inconclusive ..and have very little bearing or if (any ) on any evedience which has been presented before the court as misconduct or gross negligence,,,, furthermore it can be stated or seen as a waste of taxpayers money, therefore after review and careful thought by the given evidence which has been obtained, and presented in the bu court of law i hereby declare that in the case of CJ marston vs,,the barbados legal fraternity,,,,the case be dismissed .,
Samson,the Philistines are upon us!
What is BU and the Lawyers on BU and
“what is the Bar’s plan to tackle the growing instances of attorney dishonesty.”????
The PM can sit down with the CJ and work out an exit plan that would allow the CJ to live comfortably for the rest of his life.
I think it is significant that the CJ is communicating from Trinidad.
Check out the Corruption Perception Index of Trinidad here.
It is way down the list 38 points, # 83 of 175 countries. It can be lumped with some African countries like Zambia, Liberia, Malawi and Morocco.
In comparison, Barbados is squeaky clean, 75 points, # 15 of 175 countries.
The USA is below Barbados, 73 points and #19 of 175 countries.
I doubt there are any bloggers here that believe where Barbados is located but there it is.
By owning and controlling Barbados, the Trinis have an apparently pristine investment with a heavy looking brand.
Suppose they are only now realizing what they got for the bucks they spent.
They may not be as smart as us Bajans!!
It is in their interest for the current CJ, in fact any CJ, to clean up the mess that characterizes the legal profession here.
Otherwise they may be left with a pig in a poke.
So maybe, just maybe, the CJ with some Trini muscle is about to kick a@@.
That may be why he is down Trinidad.
That then makes one wonder why BU is denigrating the man.
What could be the agenda?
@Marston ““I want to find out what is the Bar’s plan to tackle the growing instances of attorney dishonesty.”
I want to know the answer to this question too.
Boring. Counting angels on the head of a pin while Barbados goes to the dogs.
@David “does the CJ not chair the panel of the Court of Appeal before whom this case, recently highlighted by BU has commenced and been adjourned? If this is indeed the case, for the Chief Justice Gibson (CJ) to allude to it publicly in any way, far less in a press release/statement, is highly improper if he is sitting on the hearing. It is highly improper for any judge to allude in public to a case on which he is sitting – such statements can and must only come from the Bench.”
A gentleman friend of mine once sat on a jury hearing the case of the $3.38 break and enter and steal the DAX hair grease (LOL!!!!!Hilarious!!! high, high drama) but even though the case was principally about $3.38 of DAX hair grease my friend the gentleman juror did not tell me about the case (why do I a man with 3 degrees have to sit here and listen to these @@hol!s talk about hair grease) until the judge and jury had made their decisions.
I always thought that court proceedings were confidential like that.
I know he is speaking of people like Louis Tull who while acting as the care taker of the estate of Millar who owned a number of Slot Machines around this island that on the death of Millar he Tull stepped up and stole millions of dollars from the wife of the late Mr Millar and diverted those funds to his personal bank account and not to Mrs Millar, a damn fraud and crook, it is persons like Louis Tull and Kerrie Symmonds that the CF is directing his comments about corrupt lawyers needing to be removed from the legal registry.
The CJ is in Port of Spain attending a Caribbean Heads of Judiciary meeting to discuss raising funds for justice improvement in present economic conditions. At least that’s what he says in his most recent letter to the BA.
Now I am surprised that BU is antagonistic to poor Marston about this. After all, he once again refers to thieving lawyers – with which brush all lawyers, according to some, are tarred. Once upon a time BU APPLAUDED him for this – that is when he was perceived as the golden boy. It was only RR who took a different view and was thus characterized as ‘hostile’. It was certainly very worrying to me that a supposedly confidential Marston email to Pilgrim about the image of attorneys was leaked and found its way into BU’s hands.
Now RR’s reason then for opposing the BU line was that in doing this the CJ was playing to the gallery, seeking popularity to mask his own inactivity in face of suggestions for reform by the BA then led by Pilgrim. So far as I’m aware, the clash of personalities resulted in zilch reforms. Barry Gale seems to have been more effective as a conciliator but, again so far as I’m aware, with zilch reforms
But now – poor Marston plays the same card – attack the lawyers – and hopes that that will deflect attention from his own inadequacies. Well, of course, this time it won’t work. The BU family (gawd) has caught up.
A word on the post….
I think it is too long and, as with the last Tales, raises too many issues, some specious..
It foolishly tries to play advocate and court AGAIN over the BA membership issue.
INCREDIBLY it speaks of Hal Gollop who PAID his dues so there was no impediment to his being appointed a QC – and that, dear post-writer, is a typical example of BU want of candour, which is the nicest way I can put it.
On the other hand, I quite agree that the case the CJ referred to is sub judice. He mentions it also in his most recent letter to the BA I refer to above. Disgraceful.
I think the argument about the nomination by election of the Disciplinary Committee is dumb and am sorry that the post does not make clear that the Committee reports to the CJ. In the CJ’s letter I refer to the CJ pays tribute to the diligence of the Committee in meeting weekly..
There are other things I want to say generally but I’ll leave it till later. I don’t want King David to turn his throne into a commode.
The Constitution Section
“85 (5) If the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or the Chief Justice after consultation with the Prime Minister (in the case of any other Judge) advises the Governor-General that the question of removing a Judge from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehaviour ought to be investigated, then
(a) the Governor-General shall appoint a tribunal, which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members, selected by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or of the Chief Justice (in the case of any other Judge) from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court;
(b) that tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the Governor-General and advise the Governor-General whether he should request that the question of the removal of that Judge should be referred by the Governor-General to the Caribbean Court of Justice; and
(c) if the tribunal so advises, the Governor-General shall request that the question should be referred accordingly.”
And it goes on. So while it is true that the PM cannot actually fire a CJ himself, the PM is the only person who can put the machinery for the dismissal of a CJ in train. And the PM does have that power.
I keep on saying that the “independence” of the judiciary is not absolute and any one of them can be removed by the executive, as is only right and proper, as we elected the executive to govern, rule and protect and to have care of the national exchequer from which the judiciary is paid. Although, in the case of Barbados, we have apparently elected successive executives to ride roughshod over us, inter alia protect themselves by not enacting transparency and integrity legislation and enrich themselves and not the country and to hell with the exchequer.
Simple Simon | July 15, 2014 at 11:00 PM |
I always thought that court proceedings were confidential like that.
What is the case # of the proceedings of which you write?
I just want to know so I can ask for the Court file.
Maybe it has already been decided!!
All of this may just be nit picking.
“I keep on saying that the “independence” of the judiciary is not absolute and any one of them can be removed by the executive, as is only right and proper, as we elected the executive to govern, rule and protect and to have care of the national exchequer from which the judiciary is paid.”
Someone trained in constitutional law and who should understand the rule of law actually wrote this? My word!!!
robert ross | July 15, 2014 at 11:46 PM |
The CJ is in Port of Spain attending a Caribbean Heads of Judiciary meeting to discuss raising funds for justice improvement in present economic conditions.
You get the pretty obvious point about the Corruption Perception Index.
Guyana is 27 rated #136.
Belize slipped according to this article.
Barbados’ rating is based only on 3 surveys while the majority of countries’ ratings are based on 4-10 surveys. One or more surveys could see Barbados plummeting.
Maybe that’s why TT keep out of the CCJ and clings to the Privy Council.
It realizes it could end up identified with a bunch of lame ducks, but for the Barbados rating on 3 surveys.
Who in their right mind will lend money to a regional court where corruption is perceived to be rife?
Something’s gotta give and some serious a@@ has to be kicked!!
First the PM can not make any statements after a fraud elections,
the PM cant remove no one for his eye, hands, ears , feet , brain is dirty..The crook , liar and scumbag PM can not pelt no rock-stones,
The BAR is where people get drunk on robbing Bajans,
Keith Simmons , a waste of sperm sat on this QC BAR to protect Lawyer Ralph Thorne,Then before the case was over put in in for QC before case was over,But Wait is the case over , No Ruling on the case as yet , After the evidence was given , The Check from CHASE BANK to prove her was paid for what he did nothing but waste time,
After rolling over next to his wife and said to Violet Beckles “The Judge say you cant win”The case was never filed in COURT,
It also seem that people are charge money for taking cases to court that never reach as they make payments,
Jennifer King did the same Shit, Look at he ass now,
The Bar after and curing Mr Haynes see to be worse , How the hell can you have that RATS NEST across from the high court , Oh She-it
The High Court it self sits on Unholy land ,
The court do not have Clear title to the land it sits on. Nor Sir ham, Nor CLICO Building,
So how can you have Justice when even the PM maybe in the same POT in the PINE with the US,Embassy ,
Amused | July 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM |
@Deeds. Not easy. Splinters in mouth. Very painful I am told.@ it now becomes a tooth pick
Have been looking forward to a comment from you about the matter at hand so that others better positioned than the lowly household would be able to run with.
Did you read the sponsored article by the BA last week regarding the appointment of judges?
Penny for your thoughts?
The BA issued the following statement under the name of the last BA president earlier this year, BU believes the message is known but the problem remains, how do the stakeholders solve.
Caswell Franklyn | July 15, 2014 at 7:59 PM |
The PM cannot remove a Chief Justice from office.@
For the PM should not be PM base on Fraud and Vote Buying,, is it like 22million prove that,
@ Jeff Cumberbatch
Your comment on a section of this post caused me to consult my Constitution . From it i gather that judges are removable by “an affirmative resolution of both Houses” for inability to perform their job or misconduct . would this not mean that the Executive is the body that effectively removes them?
John | July 16, 2014 at 5:09 AM | @
Index?also was fed wrong information,
If the land of Barbados was defrauded by AGs, QCs,Lawyers, Ministers , Senators,government workers, and their families,down the line
lets say , now look,
If Beatrice Henry, gave Violet Beckels which she did, All she bought in her 93 years on Earth and now 29 years in the Earth .
Watch how we got where we are today. Violet Beckles 92 on Earth and 4 years under Earth,
BY law on this side is only one Victim of Fraud,
If the People who took land , like the AG Mia, and PM Owen in the CROWN name with out payment ,but to self and Et.Alii.
Now cut up the land and move to all the big ups and the free land move for pvt profit,Where there now, is no so called TAX base as all hide and money from Inland Rev.The pressure is not put on those who have clear title to pay more,With help of Sir Herny Forde by moving 70year root title to receive Clear Title Papers , No make up while as AG a new Rule to Suit himself and the other Crooks lawyers hiding in the Drunk BAR to cover each other BACK on their way to the Beach as in Crane Scott.Blackman and many many Et,Alii,
So when you put this on the LIST it will we top of the Chart on the World .of 166 sq miles and maybe as much as 140 square miles of Fraud,
Each fraud title deed made up to each person is a case reported not to the lawful system where these crooks report bad numbers to the world.
All government department are in a massive cover up , From EX CJ Simmons, to the EX COP Dottin,to DPP,.
Now for the NEWS, papers non reporting , run by govt,
TV CBC run by govt
Radio run By Govt with TONY BEST a dam crook, liar , and scumbag reporter world wide, Paid off like a PIMP ,
The Bitches can not stand next to Me nor PLANTATION DEEDS ON ANY LEVEL.
John | July 16, 2014 at 5:09 AM | @ i hope this help you now to know and understand a little, to much to type , many names and All, Shake no hands in Barbados for none of these crooks hands are clean ,
This is what also happen to the TAX base , It out of Wack for the deeds are bad and most dont get bills and the owner dont get rent to get the vat paid to inland,The lawyer holding the land and blocking the fights,one goes down they ALL goes down,
This is why Barbados in this She-it NOW
Lawyers will only stop stealing peoples money and property, when someone makes an example of one, or two, maybe a few, and not through the law courts either.
@jeff Cumberbatch | July 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM | Indeed yes, Jeff. One of Canada’s most senior and highly respected constitutional lawyers who is called upon to lecture on constitutional law around the world in countries, like Barbados and Canada, that have “rigid” constitutions. Clearly, neither you nor your students at Cave Hill have availed yourselves of their services. I suggest strongly that you do so before seeking to question the statement. After all, if the PM has the right to commence the process of the removal of judges, as he most assuredly does, then, as the Canadian expert says, the independence of the judiciary is NOT absolute,
In any case, the “independence” of the judiciary is not a collective thing that applies to the Bench as a whole, but it resides INDIVIDUALLY in each and every judge. The judge alone holds sway over his/her court and the judge alone can rule on cases and is not in any way subservient in his/her own court, the CJ or to anyone. That, for your instruction, is what “independence” of the judiciary means. But if that judge is found wanting as specifically set out in the Constitution, then they can be removed by process that resides in the executive in the person of the Prime Minister, who, along with his party, is elected by the people.
The problem as I see it is that “independence of the judiciary” is a term often misinterpreted by those who do not fully understand jurist prudence in the first place, of which there appear to be an alarmingly increasing number, I wonder why.
Many persons have said that the way this CJ was appointed sent the wrong signals.When you start wrong ,
Is Freundel Stuart and his people dictators? They are certainly behaving that way. What with their silence on certain matters, the way the Minister of Finance operates and the lawless tendencies of the Government in general with a Chief Executive Officer who does not hold Press Conferences , one is left to question the nature of this Government that we have in power at the moment. The sad thing is that the citizens take example from these ‘poor’ leaders and this is manifested throughout the country.
For the government to visibly start the process to remove the CJ is a hot potato (politival) issue.
David | July 16, 2014 at 6:14 AM |
Penny for your thoughts? @
David , Jeff will bring a case against you for there is no PENNY”I SERVE” now the CENTS are removed? But lets hope we still have sense .I hope you save some Bajan CENTS
The Monday article from the BA “Transparency of the Judiciary”
Leaving aside the prejudices about attorneys, this article was a valiant attempt to put across a view which, if we all completely understood it, we would support. My problem with it is that the writer was attempting to write a learned paper for a law journal and NOT addressing Joe Public in language Joe Public understands. All lawyers have to make ‘linguistic translations’ to clients, juries, even some judges. The BU article was uncompromising in this respect. Of course, it may be that it was not interested in public relations OTHER than as a warning salvo to ‘them’ of what’s in store.
My first thought about the Khan approach was that he had acted too quickly after coming into office so that he rather appeared as a spoiled brat. The more I think about it all, however, the more I think there was no option but to take this line. There has been plenty of ‘nice’ and ‘not so nice’ talk. It’s time that the gloves came off.
On the other hand, the references to car parking and security trivialize the entire endeavor. Car parking in the morning is always going to be a problem whether you have designated places or not. As for security – it is surely a non-starter and especially now the magistrates are not sitting in the S Ct building. Security measures are taken in like manner in every jurisdiction I know of – and who knows there may even be some judges who might just be subject to violent attacks from disconsolate attorneys. Shepherd’s underwear might just be the beginning.
Anybody who reads this will see implicitly there why it is I agree with Schmuk Tea that it really IS time for civil war – whatever that means precisely. Standing off and being nice is all very well IF there is a willingness to work together. I see no evidence of that. So……
Correction…in para 2 above for BU read BA
I seem to remember reading that the last meeting of the Judicial Council was in 2007. If I’m right, under whose watch was that ?
Wily……in my humble opinion, i believe it would be much easier, practical, intelligent to sit down together, PM, CJ, Judges, Lawyers and work out these deep-seated problems that are seriously affecting the country as a whole and destroying the Judiciary, folks may want to remember and bear in mind that it is the only court of the land, to not do so smacks of selfishness and me-ism……we will very shortly see the players who only care about collecting their salaries and perks freely and off the backs of the taxpayers.
Ross……..more proof of how absolutely corrupt and disgusting David Simmons was and still is, he should be in prison instead of enjoying a pension at the taxpayer’s expense after all the things he did while AG, CJ, serving two masters with the taxpayer’s bearing the brunt of his betrayal.
Khan is high-spirited.
Amused…….Bajans need to be educated to the fact that Judges, CJ, all employees of the court are ALL CIVIL SERVANTS and can be dismissed……of course the PM, etc are also civil servants and can be dismissed by the taxpayers.
Amused @7:30 am
I am not rubbishing your statement on the point that independence of the judiciary is not absolute. Nothing is, in our system. What I find offensive is that you would seek to suggest that it is only right and proper that the executive should be able to remove a judge “…because we have elected them to have care of the national exchequer from which the judges are paid”. Thank goodness that our Constitution does not see it that way and has provided for a more secure tenure.
And thanks, but I do not need your instruction on the independence of the judiciary.
Incidentally, the word is JURISPRUDENCE, not “jurist prudence”. Or at least that’s what I think that you wanted to assert that you understand so well.
@Very Curious @6.38am
Which Constitution are you reading?
@ David @ 6.14am
I promise a response later.
Well Well | July 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM |
Wily……in my humble opinion, i believe it would be much easier, practical, intelligent to sit down together, PM, CJ, Judges, Lawyers and work out these deep-seated problems that are seriously affecting the country as a whole and destroying the Judiciary,@@
Well Well , it had to be a Plan and was , They all sat down and this is what we have today, They will not sit down again for that will be the proof if caught.
They all now run like cockroach now that the lights are on ,numbers do not lie , front or backwards ,
ex, 5+3=8=3+5 so as we are living the Math do not add up for them , To Many laws and favors has past hands, The law of Fraud is in full effect, When shown all must revert to make things stable,
We are at the door step of these no good Bitches , All who Chuse to bury their head in the sand will get kicked in the ASS-ets .Then the BAR-S will help and give them TIME to see their WAYS,
The Nation Of Barbados await Justice , keep the faith We are at the Doors.
vote better next time , vote with head and not PARTY.
cant not take what is not yours, Until they find the true owners
Barbados today seem to have many Minister crooks in the paper
page 10 &11
Plantation……..i know a female, owner of a nice compound with 5 houses on the island, she said David Simmons used to call her house all the time trying to get information on her property, the guy was/is a menace to the elderly when it comes to his greed and avarice for property not his own.
Now i hope when the CJ, PM, Judges, Lawyer crowd sit down to work this all out that they remember the issues are bigger than they are and can be resolved in weeks rather than years, they need to get it into their minds that it’s not about them, no one gives a rat’s ass about them and would much prefer see them all disappear, it’s about the people on the island, the judiciary, the taxpayer funded state entities like the Transport Boarf that they are sooooo successful at destroying…..cause they are toxic people…..
The way things are now no one wants to wait for a resolution that stretches into years until the above taxpayer funded civil servants are in adult diapers trying to justify their stupidity in not being capable of finding a resolution……people are sick of them and they should be happy that the people in Barbados are passive or they would not be able to walk the streets.
Here is the BA article mentioned in earlier comments.
Would you say you were a prudent jurist? I’ve been wondering whether I am. But I mustn’t hold you up. You’ll want to spend Dinky David’s penny in peace.
You know I love you but there’s absolutely no point in slagging off Simmons to me. I disagree with you totally but it doesn’t affect our date next Thursday.
Seriously though, a bunch of crooks (excluding current CJ, don’t know anything about him as yet) sitting down together, can only be discussing one thing; how to tief more money.
Well Well , how the hell you get to be smart? I feel you can be a ghost writer for PLANTATION DEEDS.
Well i know some people over in Browns Gap that cant seem to lie very good about the houses over there, I know lawyers in and around rockley who talk need but have none. Some then put up signs and polls to show they want to claim that get push down when they are seen and removed. There are even sign red and white posted for fun to see who and if removed,
David the crook Simmons knew what he was doing as AG then CJ to take what is not his, he need not call no one like the next lady for he knew Violet own what she owned and this XCJ even wanted now to run for office , As if he wanted to hind in another office till he die to avoid jail,
These Ministers Will see when out of office ,
Conspiracy , fraud, laundering, and all other crimes , even Drugs will deal with them ,
These people are more than dirty they are nasty,
@ Jeff Cumberbatch.
Oh lord JC ! I got it all wrong ! You forced me to go and find a copy of the Barbados Constitution and realised how far out I was . Thank you sir .
So far as the Bar Ass.’s position on judicial appointments is concerned, I am in broad agreement with it. I have always been offended by the idea of a Prime Minister effectively choosing a High Court judge, not necessarily on merit. There might be those who would disagree on the basis that “we have elected the Executive to be in charge of the Exchequer from which the judges are paid” but, in spite of some good appointments over the years, it is the principles of transparency and the apparent separation of powers that count for much in this debate.
De nada, Sir!
You should not stop at reading how judges are appointed, though. Have a look at the Chapter dealing with the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and then peruse the Executive. Happy reading!
Thanks, all sensible people will see nothing wrong with your position.
With respect to section III what are you saying?
LOL David…what IS this love affair with JC?
Ross…..don’t let minor disagreements ruin our lives…….lol
I just hope they get these problems fixed, no sense they fighting or disagreeing about any executive/constitutional laws, they know what the problems are, just fix them.
Plantation……..It’s good that all the dirty linen is now public, world-wide public, it might save some poor souls from being reeled into a scam by the well-known and usual suspects…….I really do hope the Judiciary is not allowed to degrade further.
@ Jeff Cumberbatch .
Man what is this “de nada” ? I don’t know that language !
Ross and Amused……..I see the CJ means business, let’s hope he goes all the way and is supported in his efforts by Fruendel Stuart.
Barbados is fast becoming a Shanique Society.
First it were the Doctors who had to kick up a fuss and go to the press to get some attention at QEH.
They were followed by the Lawyers versus the Chief Justice
Now its Donville Innis’s turn, with the Municipal Solid Waste Tax.
Where Did Al Barrack went wrong then?
Very perceptive of you. I’m sure the root of it is mean-spiritedness.
Class is class.Barbados boasted of well informed and seasoned-in-law Justices in Chief until this present US citizen came on the scene.
With the reported 19? (note i put a question mark) properties Donville reportedly owns, would he not kick up a fuss……as i said in a previous comment, Donville did not intend that he would be paying the brunt of the muni-tax, it was supposed to be only the poor, not the wealthy and successful.
Hmmm, I have a take to tell myself. Something is fishy with this one
1/19/2017 Appreciate the site– extremely informative and a lot of stuff to consider!