Since the 1970s both Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and Democratic Labour Party (DLP) have been promising Barbadians that integrity legislation. Fifty years later Barbadians fully appreciate the adage a promise is comfort for a fool. Can the BU intelligentsia explain to this blogmaster why the Integrity in Public Life Bill 2020 failed to pass the…
Since the 1970s both Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and Democratic Labour Party (DLP) have been promising Barbadians that integrity legislation. Fifty years later Barbadians fully appreciate the adage a promise is comfort for a fool.
Can the BU intelligentsia explain to this blogmaster why the Integrity in Public Life Bill 2020 failed to pass the Upper House today?
@Hal Austin August 8, 2020 4:12 AM “I was always confused as to how a Brit of Guyanese heritage could become prime minister of Barbados, simply on the basis of his grandfather being a panboiler at Buckley.
Except he did NOT become Prime Minister on the basis of his grandfather being a pan boiler at Bulkley. To say so is a BIG, FAT LIE.
Did not his mother’s family live in Barbados for hundreds of years?
Do mother’s count for anything? Or is it that you believe that only sperm counts?
Don’t mother’s grandmothers socialise and MOST Bajan children?
Isn’t it mothers who teach chiidren how to become Bajan?
Was he not raised in Barbados?
Don’t people become acculturated by living within a culture from childhood?
How can a piece of paper/birth certificate issued to the parents of a newborn carry more weight than a lifetime of socialization in a culture?
I wonder if Hal is not suffering from the English Condition?
The British Condition is that neurological disorder which causes people to falsely believe that a piece of paper carries more weight than a lifetime of lived experience.
YOU are a LIAR. Early this year YOU POST A CHART from the nails woman facebook page showing Caswell as a director of a construction company and said he got offshore accounts and involved in corrupt crap.
YOU is the body that got short memory.
People want to give so much weight to patriarchy.
Mothers are mothers in fact. Therefore defining oneself and defining others by who their mothers are is more logical, more sensible, more biologically accurate. My mother, the midwife and my eldest adult sister were present at my birth. There were no witnesses at my conception
Fathers are fathers because they believe so.
@ Cuhdear Bajan
Rhianna’s father is a Bajan and her mother Guyanese. She ain’t of Guyanese heritage? People like the same Hal Austin won’t recognize that fact because she famous.
@David August 8, 2020 7:53 AM “Simple Simon. Hope you are not suggesting that a rookie Minister made the decision all by her lonesome to request a medical certificate from the Acting Chief Medical Officer?”
Lolll!!! David, I bin ‘roun’ town long.
Long, long, long, long before anybody in the current House, except for my dear sweet George Payne, but i knew him from the time he was in short pants. I know what his knees look like when they are not dressed in a fine suit, lol! I bin around befor most of the people in the Senate except maybe for Cappy and Johnny.
Certainly some of my children are older than the Senator, better educated too, and “yes” we do have “dinner-table” conversations. Well maybe not “dinner table” but working in de groun’ conversations. Same t’ing.
Where do these ignoramuses come from, they can’t even go on certain other platforms, first they would have to pass a mental acuity test and many will fail..or struggle significantly
……….i RE-POSTED something from someone else’s page which more than likely included other things…which has nothing to do with anything……that is completely different to me POSTING something i typed or created about Caswell…ah told ya that ya are dumb………christ…the education system in Barbados needs to be UPGRADED…
that is why people like me create work for gossipy, idle little boys on BU…
@Hal,
i thought it would be better to tackle your query from a ‘loyalty / disloyalty’ stance because the question of conflict of interest is only a theoretical one and i dont see where a practical instance of that would arise as a matter of concern
Her father’s family has lived in Barbados for hundreds of years, one of her elderly great aunts died at 81 two or three weeks ago. She was born in Barbados, but more importantly she was socialized in Barbados so that makes her Bajan.
I wonder if Hal thinks that because Jesus was born in a stable that makes his an ass?
Hal always seems to be in some miserable British Condition.
Yes, you REPOSTED the CHART, and it is YOU that WRITE the COMMENT that Caswell should EXPLAIN bout the offshore account and being corrupt.
So what…i asked Caswell a question…did he answer and did you see me pursue it, ya need real work…asking him to explain is not accusing him of anything, asking is requesting an explanation because of what someone else. and him not replying told me a couple things……there is a difference, what the hell have they been teaching yall at BCC…that ya can’t seem to decipher reality..
If all you have to do is dig around in old posts all day, it says more about you than about me, because am sure i posted thousands of comments that are way more important and gives more insight into ending slave society racist apartheid corruption, human rights violations in Barbados…why don’t you go investigate who held up Caswell at gunpoint, who set it up and paid for it.., if ya looking for real work..
Idiot, why would anybody have to go through old post when they could simply remember what you said. And the fact that I ain’t repost none of your old posts say a lot.
You post nuff charts on BU with people names them SAYING IT IS PROOF that they GOT offshore bank accounts and they corrupt. You then post a chart with Caswell as a director of a construction company, talk all type of shyte bout the man and ask him to explain his offshore account and being corrupt.
Now you want to tell we that there is a difference?
And, look, I say when I was at BCC. That don’t mean I went school there. I cun be uh employee?
BUT, WAIT, I THOUGHT YOU SAY YOU DON’T READ MY POST?
The way ya carrying on, i won’t be a bit surprised if you have no advanced education…i was being sarcastic when i asked if that is the level of intellect BCC is producing now, so you may have worked at BCC and watching the young adults so closely… when you see i changed the subject, like on the other blog, means am bored with you, since you don’t seem to have a significant other, go play with yaself, try not to molest someone’s minor child..
@Cuhdear Bajan
Certainly some of my children are older than the Senator, better educated too, and “yes” we do have “dinner-table” conversations.
+++++++++++++++
Must you drag your high achieving children and family into every conversation? Who cares if they are better educated? The Senator made a mistake and apologized and she should be commended for it because apologies from MP’’s and/or Ministers are virtually non- existent in Barbados.
The thing is that you real easy to manipulate and that is reason why you does change subjects. Cause you feel if you get in the last word, you win the argument. Yuh can’t help responding every time I post something because you is a weak, delusional woman wid a very fragile ego. That is one of the reasons why you does tell nuff lies and misrepresent what people say to prove just to yuh self right.
Uh gine mek yuh fret yuh self.
FIRST FOR CJ
Post of head of Supreme Court to be advertised
By Maria Bradshaw mariabradshaw@nationnews.com
For the first time in Barbados’ legal history the post of Chief Justice will be advertised.
Attorney General Dale Marshall told the Sunday Sun that while the Prime Minister would still have the final say on the person selected to head the Supreme Court of Barbados, the Judicial Selection Committee will play a significant role in the process.
“The Prime Minister is about to write to the Judicial Selection Committee to ask them to start the process,” Marshall stated in relation to the advertisement for the position.
Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson vacates the bench in three weeks after informing the Governor General back in June that he was going on preretirement leave from August 31.
Previously, the Chief Justice was chosen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
Marshall explained that Government amended the Supreme Court of Judicature Act last year to allow the post of judges to be advertised and the selection to be made by the Judicial Selection Committee.
“So, that is why last year, it had never been done before in Barbados. We amended the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to bring a more transparent process with the appointment of judges. The old system, there were never any advertisements. A person was just appointed to be judge, so persons did not feel they had a fair shake and equally there was no known methods of determining suitability. So we changed our laws so as to allow for the implementation of something that the Commonwealth adopted called the Latimer House Principles.”
The Latimer House Guidelines states that judicial vacancies should be advertised and recommendations for appointment should come from a Judicial
Services Commission.
Marshall indicated that process which was used for selecting eight High Court judges earlier this year would also be used for the selection of a new Chief Justice.
“We are adopting the same process. Advertisements are going to go out shortly,” he said.
However, he noted: “At the end of the day, the Prime Minister still has the final say. What this system does, it allows for a wider cross section of people to be considered and therefore will allow for a better and more transparent making decision process.”
The Judicial Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister.
Retired Chief Justice Sir David Simmons is chairman of that committee. The Chief Justice sits as an ex officio member. Other members include Sir Dennis Byron, former President of the Caribbean Court of Justice; retired Justice of Appeal, Christopher Blackman; Barry Gale QC representing the Barbados Bar Association and retired banker Patricia Brunton, representing civil society.Source: Nation
However, he noted: “At the end of the day, the Prime Minister still has the final say. What this system does, it allows for a wider cross section of people to be considered and therefore will allow for a better and more transparent making decision process.”…(Quote)
Smoke and mirrors. How can the prime minister have the final say under the so-called Latimer Principles? The prime minister should recuse herself. But, can she? She is obsessed with power and this is too important an appointment to allow someone else to make..
Maybe the issue is who is pulling the strings behind the scenes with politicians who are groomed and sponsored by people with big money to follow their agendas. Likewise there are networks of people in power within Justice, Legal, Banking, Business Financial, Government, Police and all local systems such as brotherhood of masons in western lands who also rife in third world.
‘Follow the money’ is a key method in identifying corruption / lack of integrity MO, although people hide their tracks with various tricks and loopholes like in money laundering and tax avoidance such as offshore accounts, payment in lands, money paid as loans that are not paid back etc.
Any new laws implemented must also be able to be applied retroactively as by the time they are put into force people have invented new workarounds. When Government designs systems they also design back doors and know how to work the system.
Wuhloss…the corrupt claim they are headed to the international court and some are of the opinion that while they say they are taking EU there that others are gearing up to take corrupt ministers to international courts too….lol
and while all that drama is playing out their slaves are on BU displaying envy and jealousy….and can’t see that manipulating a slave swings both ways…
we can’t make this up..
Maybe the best way to proceed is to set up a non-political Policing Task force to crack down on breaches in laws regarding integrity etc, with powers to implement new laws and processes through Parliament if needed. There is the issue of one hand reconciling what the other is doing if those in power are the ones checking themselves.
Laws are just abstract concepts, open to interpretation, easily circumvented and are not brick walls that prevent people doing whatever they want. People break laws and rules all the time and are only careful to do what is right if they are at risk of being caught and punished for doing wrong.
quote]
However, he noted: “At the end of the day, the Prime Minister still has the final say. What this system does, it allows for a wider cross section of people to be considered and therefore will allow for a better and more transparent making decision process.”
The Judicial Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister.
Retired Chief Justice Sir David Simmons is chairman of that committee. The Chief Justice sits as an ex officio member. Other members include Sir Dennis Byron, former President of the Caribbean Court of Justice; retired Justice of Appeal, Christopher Blackman; Barry Gale QC representing the Barbados Bar Association and retired banker Patricia Brunton, representing civil society.
[quote
i dont understand this piece at all. if there are rules and a committee set up for the interviews, how does the PM have a final say? i understand that the PM would have appointed the Chair and perhaps other committee members but is the PM consulted by the chair before the person is chosen for approval? can the PM dictate which candidate is acceptable? if so, how does this process make any sense?
@ Greene
It is due to the line of reporting, where PM is Chief of Justice’s boss.
555,
how does she get his boss? does the CJ report to the PM before he renders a decision at court?
He/she is independent but also accountable to her. Even lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers. A feature of making Chief of Justice unaccountable to anyone is he/she could be bribable and above the law himself/herself.
The PM appoints the members of the Judicial Committee that in turn selects the candidates that the PM ultimately approves. What is transparent about that process?
There is an input, verification, authorisation process put in place*
where PM’s approval signs off Judicial Committee’s work
this covers the Judicial Committee’s asses for claims of impropriety
if it all goes tits up then PM is ultimately responsible for the blame
The PM is Capo di tutti capi
i admit that i am not totally au fait with intricate matters of the constitution of Barbados but from general knowledge of such issues, i cant see where the CJ would report directly to the PM. like the CoP and others responsible for law and order under British type system they would report to the GG
Written or unwritten, it is difficult to imagine someone being appointed without a nod or at least tacit approval of the prime minister.
It may be an unnecessary step as the Committee may have taken pains to select and present the type of candidate the minister desired. The final step is to get an inkling of what the chemistry would be like between the two. Bad chemistry and up comes the second candidate.
Let me play the role of Cuhdear
1.It is also stated that the Judicial Committee is appointed by the Prime minister
Is it a standing committee or is it activated/appointed when there is a vacancy to be filled?
After activation/appointment is the Committee supposed to act as an independent committee.
Wuh Loss!
’round and ’round the mulberry bush we go. Same old Khaki pants.
🙂 I have the same feeling on this one 🙂
i would imagine that the selection of the person and the rank order is sent onto the PM / Cabinet for ratification. they can then object or ratify. if they ratify the matter is then passed onto the GG for the rest of the process, swearing in etc
@TheOgazerts August 9, 2020 9:23 AM “Let me play the role of Cuhdear.”
I hope that you know that my character is protected by copyright in 315 countries.
You will shortly receive a letter from my lawyer/accountant [I am too cheap tp pay two different people] demanding payment of royalties.
Lolll!!!
Hell, somebody is going to be making decisions. We voted for the MPs. The MPs voted for the PM. There is no perfect system that would guarantee us perfect justice. We the people have to put pressure on our government to do the right things. To be honest I find Mia has been more responsive to protest than any other of our prime ministers.
Suppose we had a system like the US. Would that guarantee us perfect justice?
Fairy tales are for children. This is the real world.
Political lip service to anti-corruption laws
A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institutions said that “the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it” – to look at it not on a great party field-day, or at a time of parade, but in the ordinary transaction of business. – Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1873). If one were to substitute the unelected “Senate of Barbados” in the quote above, the prescription of the respected British constitutional theorist’s “not unfriendly critic”, then the cure would perhaps be equally as severe.
Those who witnessed some or all of the proceedings of the Senate on August 6 when it considered the Integrity in Public Life Bill are in a better position now to appreciate why there is so little admiration for what is also called the Upper House.
A brief recap: With a clear understanding that the bill under consideration would require a two-thirds majority of senators (14 of the 21-member body) for passage, the Government, with only ten votes certain, given a controversial walkout by four others, nevertheless inexplicably proceeded to the vote, resulting in its fall.
It was the clearest example of a script for the cure of any admiration for the Senate whether one had seen it at work on “a great party fieldday or at a time of parade”.
As a journalist who spent a significant portion of my career covering Parliament, I have seen the Senate up close on its “good” days and unfortunately on some of its worst.
What transpired during the sitting on August 6 approached comedic performance art and helped to fortify my view, expressed previously in this space, that the Senate should be abolished in favour of a unicameral assembly.
To my knowledge, the Government, which had made anti-corruption legislation one of the central planks of its 2018 election campaign, has not yet offered the public an explanation for why it pushed this bill to its certain death in the Senate – the melodrama surrounding genuine COVID-19 concerns notwithstanding, By my reckoning, it marked the second time that similar legislation has been passed by the House of Assembly but was stymied by the Senate.
Other anti-corruption legislation made it past both Houses of Parliament but died – without explanation from the then Government either – in that unfathomable abyss between passage, assent and proclamation.
The history of at least these three pieces of legislation gives rise to the unfortunate and regrettable conclusion that none of the Governments formed by the two major political parties has been serious about enacting strong, comprehensive anti-corruption laws.
Yes, we have gone through what in each case has turned out to be the theatre of wide consultation and solicitation of submissions from stakeholders, including critical bodies such as the Bar Association, but then nearing or at the final hurdle, things simply fell apart.
The question is, why?
Why does the political class continue to pay lip service to the notion of integrity in public life while at each turn of the election cycle, the rooting out of corruption becomes the broad brush with which to paint opponents and the instant order of the day?
My view is that despite the approximate five-year cyclical charades, the political class – and that includes the elected, nominated and the professional advisers, the influential and well entrenched “army of occupation” along with corporate donors – simply does not have the stomach for the awful-tasting “cure” of modern, all-encompassing anti-corruption laws.
Remember that the existing legislation was passed in 1929 when Barbados was still, essentially, a backward British colonial outpost.
Ten years ago, the cynic in me suggested that the
political class in Barbados was even more cynical than some journalists and that modern anti-corruption legislation would not reach the statute books in our lifetimes.
Not much has changed in between that time, but the cynicism remains and is perhaps growing even stronger.
An upgrade to our anticorruption laws would have to breach the stonewalls of what Errol Barrow called the “enlightened self-interest” of those who believe that provisions requiring people in public life, including MPs, senators, their children under 18, to declare their assets would deter outstanding civic-minded people from offering their talents to public service.
History records that some of the same concerns expressed by the political class in 1981 about key provisions of the bill were repeated with equal stridency in 2012, and essentially from the same quarters.
The fact that some members of the then ruling Barbados Labour Party (BLP) were opposed to the proposed legislation in 1981 contributed in no small measure to the demise of the bill, which was stymied in the Senate through a combination of internal opposition, Independent senators, senior civil servants and influential members of statutory boards.
A key member of that BLP Cabinet later explained to me that one reason the party has not been enamoured of the legislation was that some MPs did not think their spouses, who were not paid from the public purse, should have to declare their earnings and assets, especially when in this small society such information could be used by rabblerousers at political meetings to cause embarrassment.
In 2012, the then ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) also faced internal dissent, with one MP, Minister of Health Donville Inniss, publicly declaring that he did not feel elected members of Parliament should “declare our assets to the world”.
The increasingly amorphous political class still believes it is okay to support the general purpose of anti-corruption legislation but dissent from the majority on certain provisions, secure in the knowledge that it will probably never reach the stages of assent and proclamation to become the law of the land.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: AlbertBrandford@nationnews. com
(Quote):
My view is that despite the approximate five-year cyclical charades, the political class – and that includes the elected, nominated and the professional advisers, the influential and well entrenched “army of occupation” along with corporate donors – simply does not have the stomach for the awful-tasting “cure” of modern, all-encompassing anti-corruption laws. (Unquote).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the more informative pieces of journalism written in a long time in Bim.
Asking politicians to legislate -but more importantly, implement- anti-corruption laws is like asking a mother rat to build a ‘mouse- trap’ to capture its offspring.
The lifelong objective of a Bajan politician is not to fulfil any dream based on a political ideology to bring about any social transformation or upliftment of the society but to gain access to the door of the taxpayers’ money house.
The objective is to raid that ‘money-store’ by the awarding of over-inflated costly contracts to their sponsors and friends in the private sector with the politicians and their bureaucratic colluders getting their shares of the kickback deal by posing, like the Den(n)is the down Low(e), that oft repeated question: “Where is my Cut?”
The situation at the BWA is a perfect case as to why the politicians would not vote, like turkeys for Xmas, for any effective (repeat ‘effective’) anti-corruption legislation which would only cut their own throats, figuratively speaking of course.
Why not check the financial ‘figures’ in the background supporting both the recent and current crop of politicians and see who are still the real shadowy movers and shady shakers still pretending to be their “friends” and sponsors if not the likes of Malmoney.
Govt rolled out 33 electric buses
Populace is still in the dark as to how much of the public purse was afforded to buy them
Mechanically retrofit and all other cost applied to having these buses ready prepared for transportation
A govt that promised transparency has so far in two years delivered nothing
Oh i forgot nuff showboating
[…] unnecessarily acrimonious through the years. The same point made here about the failure to pass the Integrity in Public Life Bill is apt. All sides will never secure what they want, however, for the greater good there must be give […]
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.