For months I have contemplated but resisted writing about the rule of law, or lack thereof, in Barbados under two consecutive states of emergency. All that changed after I read a WhatsApp message sent to me from an unknown person. It simply said:
“If you allow the government to break the law in an emergency, they will create emergencies to break the law.”
In order to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government of Barbados decided that it would institute a state of emergency. Rather than use the existing provisions, Government sidestepped the Constitution and the 1939 Emergency Powers Act and amended the Emergency Management Act to provide for a public health emergency. They claimed that the existing Laws of Barbados did not provide for such. Notwithstanding Government’s claim, I contend that there are ample laws to institute any such emergency.
Section 25.(1) of the Constitution permits the Governor-General to declare that a state of emergency exists. Section 25.(2) goes on to state, in part:
A proclamation made by the Governor-General shall not be effective for the purposes of subsection (1) unless it is declared therein that the Governor-General is satisfied-
(a) that a public emergency has arisen as a result of the imminence of a state of war between Barbados and another State or as a result of the occurrence of any earthquake, hurricane, flood, fire, outbreak of pestilence, outbreak of infectious disease or other calamity, whether similar to the foregoing or not…
The power in the Constitution to declare a state of emergency as a result of the “outbreak of infectious disease” immediately gives the lie to Government’s claim that there were no provisions to cater to a public health emergency.
Under a state of public emergency government can, and in this case, restrict citizens from enjoying their constitutional right. The mechanism for doing so in the current emergency is a series of directives issued by the Prime Minister. I make bold to say that the Prime Minister cannot use this mechanism to curtail constitutional rights and freedoms since the enabling legislation did not amend or alter the Constitution of Barbados in anyway. To my mind, since the Emergency Management (Amendment) Act, 2020 did not amend or alter the Constitution; any directives issued by the Prime Minister that curtailed our constitutional rights would be illegal and of no effect.
The obvious question would therefore be: How can government declare a state of emergency to protect the country from the ravages of this Corvid-19 pandemic? The simple answer would be that government should have invoked the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939-3. I readily admit that many of the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act would offend the Constitution, if they were passed today. Be that as it may, the Constitution itself at section 26 saved laws that would be unconstitutional if there were passed prior to November 30, 1966.
Section 26 of the Constitution also allows the government to re-enact an existing law without alteration or if altered those alterations would not render the law inconsistent with the human rights provisions of the Constitution, that is sections 12 to 23. The amendments made to the Emergency Management Act in 2020 have not faithfully re-enacted the relevant provisions of the Emergency Powers Act. For example, all those orders/directives made under the Emergency Powers Act must, in accordance with section 3.(4) shall be laid before Parliament. It states:
Any orders so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall not continue in force after the expiration of 7 days from the time when there are so laid unless a resolution is passed by both Houses providing for the continuation.
Section 33.(5) of the Emergency Management Act, which required the Government to lay emergency orders before Parliament, was repealed by the 2020 amendments. It is therefore obvious to me that this Government wanted no oversight when it implemented the public health emergency.
Section 48.(1) of the Constitution provides that Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Barbados. It is therefore my view that even if enabling legislation allows the Prime Minister or anyone else to make rules, they must be approved by Parliament. In this present state of emergency the Prime Minister is making laws for the peace, order and good government of Barbados without any reference to Parliament.
I am now wondering if persons, who were penalised by the courts for infringing these directives, have any remedy against the state. It would appear that our Prime Minister has now become the absolute dictator of Barbados, which is not too far removed from being a despot. Could the late Prime Minister Arthur have been predicting the future? Just wondering!
This is what happens when ya sell out ya own people, it must all come out in the wash even 55 years later…ya must confess…people are still in prison innocently because of these sellouts.
“BLACK VOICES 02/21/2021 07:02 pm ET Updated 12 hours ago
Deathbed Letter From Former Cop Claims NYPD, FBI Helped Kill Malcolm X
A cousin of Ray Wood, a former undercover police officer, shared a confession letter in which Wood said that the agencies facilitated the assassination.
By Ja’han Jones
A letter shared by the family of a deceased former New York police officer alleges that the officer, the New York City Police Department and the FBI played a role in the murder of the powerful civil rights leader Malcolm X.
The outspoken antiracism activist and former spokesman for the Nation of Islam died on February 21, 1965, after being shot while delivering remarks at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City.
Ray Wood, a former undercover police officer, wrote in a newly released confession letter that the NYPD and FBI worked with him to make sure the two men in charge of Malcolm X’s security detail were arrested in the days before the speech.
Ray Wood first shared his confession with family when he was diagnosed with stomach cancer in 2011. At the time, he asked his cousin, Reggie, not to share the letter until after he died. Ray Wood died in November, and Reggie Wood shared his cousin’s confession publicly on Saturday, flanked by a group that included Malcolm X’s daughters, Qubiliah Shabazz, Ilyasah Shabazz and Gamilah Shabazz, and civil rights attorneys Benjamin Crump, Ray Hamlin and Paul Napoli.
“For 10 years, I have carried this confession secretly in fear of what could happen to my family and myself if the government found out what I knew,” Reggie Wood said Saturday.
Ray Wood confessed that he, the NYPD and the U.S. government all made sure Malcolm X wasn’t adequately protected from assassination during his final speech. “I participated in actions that in hindsight were deplorable and detrimental to the advancement of my own, Black people,” Wood said.
According to his letter, in 1965, Wood’s NYPD supervisors instructed him to devise a plot to bomb the Statue of Liberty along with two key members of the Malcolm X’s security detail, Khaleel Sayyed and Walter Bowe, in order to ensure the two security guards were arrested and separated from Malcolm X during his Feb. 21 speech.
“It was my assignment to draw the two men into a felonious federal crime so that they could be arrested by the FBI and kept away from managing Malcolm X’s Audubon Ballroom door security,” he admitted. Sayyed and Bowe were arrested on Feb. 16 in connection with the plot, although Bowe testified at the time that it was Wood who devised it. Wood’s letter released more than a half-century later corroborates Bowe’s claim.
Wood also confessed to helping frame a man named Thomas Johnson, most recently known as Khalil Islam, for Malcolm X’s murder. While serving a life sentence for the murder, Islam maintained his innocence until he died in 2009.
“On February 21, 1965, I was ordered to be at the Audubon Ballroom, where I was identified by witnesses while leaving the scene,” Wood said in his letter. “Thomas Johnson was later arrested and wrongfully convicted to protect my cover and the secrets of the FBI and the NYPD.”
Reggie Wood said his cousin withheld his role in Malcolm X’s assassination all these years because he “worried about what the NYPD and the FBI would do to him and his family if he had told the dark secrets he had held that helped destroy Black leaders and Black power organizations.”
Ray Wood said law enforcement officials threatened him with “pending alcohol trafficking charges … if I did not follow” their instructions to help thwart civil rights groups. His confession also shared details of the NYPD’s efforts to frame a group of Black Panthers, known as the “Panther 21,” who were acquitted after being wrongly accused of plotting terrorist attacks in New York in 1969.
Ray Hamlin, an attorney representing Malcolm X’s family, said they are owed recompense if the government played any role in his murder.
“If this heinous act was with the help and support of law enforcement and our government, then certainly I think the Shabbazz family is deserving of some sort of retribution by way of compensation,” Hamlin said Saturday.
Ilyasah Shabbazz said “any evidence that provides greater insight” into her father’s murder should be “thoroughly investigated.”
Attorney Benjamin Crump drew a direct connection between the attempts by law enforcement to infiltrate and stifle activists movements in the 1960s and the more recent efforts by law enforcement groups to stifle activist movements like Black Lives Matter. In the past year, for example, the Justice Department under former President Donald Trump deployed surveillance tools to spy on protest leaders during the height of last summer’s antiracism protests.
“Even though this is an astonishing revelation from the past,” Crump said of Ray Wood’s confession, “I’ll remind you: The past is prologue. Malcolm X is Black Lives Matter.”
Crump called on the Manhattan district attorney and members of Congress — in particular the Congressional Black Caucus — to investigate Ray Wood’s confession and the government’s potential role in Malcolm X’s murder.”
Sellout NIGGERISM has been a BLIGHT and CURSE in Black/African lives on the earth for 500 YEARS…and everyone of you sellouts will be found and isolated, you remain a clear and present danger to Black/Africans EVERYWHERE….and must eternally be EXCLUDED from the Black/African family.
…now that is understood…we know who you no good black face sellouts in the various parliaments are…that one is easy…don’t for one minute think ya will escape isolation because of a slave title, only yardfowls are impressed by backward stupidity.
With SELLOUTS abound in the parliament, KEEP THIS in the back of ya minds at all times…they are the BIGGEST PROBLEM…
“With almost 130,000 fatalities, Britain has suffered the world’s fifth-highest official death toll from the pandemic and its economy has seen its biggest crash in over 300 years.”
At least this made sense especially considering the long term ramifications on individuals lives
Political Scientist Peter Wickham is strongly against heavy fines and jail time being handed down to COVID-19 protocol violators.
His sentiments echoed several made over the lockdown period against the decision to fine or incarcerate several individuals pleading guilty to acting in contravention of the Emergency Directives in place.
Some of these breaches include: incorrectly or not wearing a mask; being outside during curfew hours without having a reasonable explanation or having an emergency pass; or hosting or taking part in parties or limes, to name a few.
Wickham argued the pandemic was being looked at from a medical standpoint and because medical solutions were being implemented, this was creating “unintended problems”.
“We have endured a second, more painful lockdown and this time the courts have been littered with evidence of our failure to stop mingling. Some of you may argue that those cases are instances of ‘wufless’ Bajans who are mingling. However, I think not. We have a case of a young man who just left university and his father, and they both now have criminal records after being incarcerated for having friends over to break bread. We have a young man who lives without electricity and water who must now find $1,250 in fines… This is evidence of failing to curtail our mingling… I am confident that these cases are but a small portion of the huge numbers of Barbadians who broke quarantine in pursuit of their ontological needs – the needs to eat, sleep, seek shelter and have sex. These are things that we human beings are programmed to do.
“I am sorry, I do not see a man or woman who does day work to provide for family and prefers to work for a living, instead of accepting a food parcel and goes in pursuit of such as a ‘wufless criminal’,” he said, while speaking on a call-in radio programme earlier this week.
The pollster noted the long-term impact of criminal records must be considered, especially when seeking employment.
“We have applied medical solutions and we have created a major social and legal problem while the medical problem continues to exist,” he
Barbados has gone from having a sleeping giant as manager to a ruthless giant whose moral compass is broken
In yesterday periodical a man is suing govt for implementing Covid measures which are in total contrast to individual Constitutional rights
A good and must be appluaded effort by this individual
However given the many rulings by courts all which have supported govt measures the climb going upwards to win the case against govt would be long and hard
Most notably Mia put all and Sundry on notice that big works come through her and for sure this law suit is bigly
You are questioning the independence of the Court. We get it.
DavidMarch 7, 2021 7:27 AM
You are questioning the independence of the Court. We get it
Yes i am
All have heard about a corrupt legal system
Nothing is new under the sun in barbados
Exhibit A Charles Herbert
Only in barbados
A boat laden with drugs and the case is not handed to a jury to decide
Worse yet a kangsroo court handed the decision
A man walks away with a clean record
Now compare that case to an individual who steals a loaf of bread or break curfew to get something to eat and is sentenced to jail and has a long time serving criminal record on file
Get it
There is something morally and ethically wrong when a court makes rulings which in effect rubs against the ethical and moral compass of the Constitution and rules in favour of govt measures which does not
The mere thought of a ruling which gave a man his freedom after evidence indicates wrong doing points to a system that is sick and in need of mending
A system that is goaded and overrun by corrupted lost souls
@ac
I agree with you statement of 7:57 a.m as it would be difficult to be satisfied with justice as it is dispensed in Barbados.
Extremely harsh and punitive in some instances and as soft as silk in others. The disparities are known and we should not pretend that lady justice is blind.
Does that mean our justice system has failed?
Could the case Caswell Franklyn referred to below be also used as an example?
“I brought a case against the Government for a union member when I worked at NUPW eleven years ago. We won in 2010 but the Government aided and abetted by the court have tried every manoeuvre to avoid paying compensation.”
Surely your thoughts on this would be interesting. Or, is it you believe the independence of the Court comes into question when a particular political party is ‘in power?’
Artax
Surely your thoughts on this would be interesting. Or, is it you believe the independence of the Court comes into question when a particular political party is ‘in power?
It is all about perception which shines light on the govt of the day also the court rulings and its impact on individuals
Also remember the Barack case the court spoke but govt of the day never took seriousness to the court order
Also one can cast mind to the Hyatt case and the hullabaloo that gave cause for a court ruling against the Stuart govt never mind that the same issue has gone to rest without any further transparency on enviromental issues
Also the Arch Cot issue
Evidence provided to apply it is whose ox is being goaded
The system is working fine as tabled. A magistrate fine was deemed to be harsh under appeal. The magistrate determined a decision based on the discretion he was allowed under law. The appeal system is meant to balance the scales of justice.
Laws can be big a.holes at times
Reason the Constituion is the first and last guideline to avoid rogue and corrupt magistrates from falling into the deep end
RE: “Also remember the Barack case the court spoke but govt of the day never took seriousness to the court order.”
Irrelevant.
RE: “Also one can cast mind to the Hyatt case and the hullabaloo that gave cause for a court ruling against the Stuart govt never mind that the same issue has gone to rest without any further transparency on environmental issues.”
Your above comment is not true.
Comissiong filed the case on the grounds that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not done, prior to Stuart making the decision to construct Hyatt.
Since then, an EIA was conducted and a report completed.
RE: “Also the Arch Cot issue.”
From what I’ve read in your contributions on that issue, you’ve never mentioned anything that could be considered relevant to the case, other than ‘hear say’ and your usual conspiracy theories, which you presented as truth.
Artax what might seem irrelevant to u would be considered relevant to individuals involved in the case
The bottom line being that evidence has shown that over the years court rulings given towards the blp has found their way to run a muck leading to years of continuous avoidence by then govt
Only when the court has ruled in there (govt) will they abide
In meanwhile the court remains silent on the contempt
@ angela cox March 7, 2021 9:58 AM
RE: “Artax what might seem irrelevant to u would be considered relevant to individuals involved in the case.”
Your initial argument was based on questioning “the INDEPENDENCE of the Court.”
The Court ruling in favour of Barrack, against the then BLP administration does not question the Court’s independence, but indicates impartiality. In other words, the Court’s decision was based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias.
As such, Barrack’s case is irrelevant. Therefore, I’m at a loss as to how it “would be considered RELEVANT to individuals involved in (that particular) case.”
RE: “The bottom line being that evidence has shown that over the years court rulings given towards the blp has found their way to run a muck leading to years of continuous avoidence by then govt.”
It took a bit of prodding, but I knew you would’ve eventually mentioned what was your intended objective. And, as usual, it was to politicize the discussion into a BLP versus DLP scenario.
However, please provide BU with that “evidence.”
Relevance goes to where a ruling by the court was ordered to govt and was not carried out by the govt of the day
Also relevance which indicated a silent posture taken by the court for many years not to enforce the ruling towards govt
“Quote):
Does that mean our justice system has failed?
(Unquote).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely!!
The Bajan Justice system repeatedly violates the highest law of the Land by denying litigants, especially alleged criminals, their ‘Constitutional right to a fair and timely hearing thereby making a mockery of that sacrosanct principle which is inviolably enshrined in the highest form of Law called Morality: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
However, in your Two Barbadoses justice is always served on a timely platter but only to those who can buy it like the Bjerk off ham and the Ecstatic Herbert.
At the root lies Money .
Just take a look at how govt takes millions of tax payers money and give it away like candy to business who refused to pay taxes
Whereby in such instances tge average low paying worker would be carted off to Dodds for not paying. small or low back taxes
Even the Supreme leader father was given a pass
At the root is political yardfowlism.
Our justice system has failed just as the one in the UK has failed.
Lady Justice is not blind to anything but injustice. In fact, she has an admiring eye for the rich and powerful in EVERY jurisdiction ALL over the world.
In some cases the occasional big fish is caught and offered up as a sacrifice. But Lady Justice has a habit of throwing back most of the big fish and feasting on numerous minnows.
So,,, there is no rush to crawl out of the woodwork to celebrate our failure unless you have slready planned the party for the UK.
How is Prince Andrew doing?
DavidMarch 7, 2021 11:19 AM
At the root is political yardfowlism
Not unlike u to jump.off the fence and spin your top
Steupse
You are the biggest yardfowl on the blog, we will not let you for it. As Donna reminds us, BU Archives active.
David stick to topic at hand
There are many yardfowls that visit this page most noticable is you
Exhibit A is your now defense and offensive posture to attack me because i dare take a position to highlight govt flaws and govt uneven handedness and the court harsh rulings against poor citizens who break COVID laws
It must be something that i said right to ruffle yuh feathers
This is the point, including you. Please consider changing your livery to bolster credibility.
@ angela cox March 7, 2021 10:59 AM #: “Relevance goes to where a ruling by the court was ordered to govt and was not carried out by the govt of the day.”
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue to the one you INITIALLY raised.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
angela cox March 7, 2021 11:17 AM #: “Just take a look at how govt takes millions of tax payers money and give it away like candy to business who refused to pay taxes. Whereby in such instances the average low paying worker would be carted off to Dodds for not paying. small or low back taxes.”
You’ve often raised this point. However, although I’m not in agreement with ‘writing of taxes,’ I must remind you taxes were ‘written off’ for all businesses for the period under review, whether they were small, medium or large.
The income tax threshold is currently $25,000 per annum. This means people earning $2,084 per month or $481 per week, which is perhaps representative of “the average low paying worker” you’ve referred to……….. are exempted from paying income tax.
Taking that information into consideration, could you please provide BU with examples of cases where “the average low paying worker (was) carted off to Dodds for not paying small or low back taxes?”
********* writing OFF taxes……………..
DavidMarch 7, 2021 11:48 AM
This is the point, including you. Please consider changing your livery to bolster credibility.
I speak with my own conscience not relying on any one to whisper in my ears
Notice how many rabbit holes in the past two years u have placed on BU
A tool which have paid off and ones which were ready and prepared to distract from govt failing policies
Yet u speak and knock on the door about individual credibility
What a belly laugh
angela coxMarch 7, 2021 11:17 AM
At the root lies Money .
Just take a look at how govt takes millions of tax payers money and give it away like candy to business who refused to pay taxes
Whereby in such instances tge average low paying worker would be carted off to Dodds for not paying. small or low back taxes
Even the Supreme leader father was given a pass
What example !
Just take a look at how the justice system long arm holds the average citizen by the neck for breaking curfew breaches or petty theft
Hard to envision the average person not paying taxes giving relief from the court
The judicial system has always lean heavily against the most vulnerable
Reason why barbados has been given the name Two barbadoes
If at the root is money then there is no solution in sight!
Read ePaper
Home / Politics / Prosecute them
Caswell Franklyn
Prosecute them – by Barbados Today March 27, 2019
Senator Caswell Franklyn believes those companies which owe Government large sums of unpaid Value Added Tax should face criminal prosecution.
As debate on the Appropriation Bill moved to the Upper Chamber today, the lawmaker said those who collected VAT as an agent of Government but did not hand it over were essentially stealing from the Crown and should face criminal charge.
Senator Caswell said: “It is a crime. The [Director of Public Prosecutions] can choose not to prosecute. Stealing VAT is a crime in this country that should be prosecuted. I don’t know who is being protected or who is being hidden. I don’t want to guess. But those people need to come before the courts and face a judge or magistrate and be sentenced for their crime. The VAT that you collect is not yours. I will not rest when people are stealing and getting away with it.”
The trade unionist said the VAT funds owed to Government could be put to better use. He then chastised the Prime Minister for forgiving defaulters.
He told the Senate: “We are suffering by people not paying the relevant taxes. You fail to collect the taxes from them and you also write off the taxes that they owe… people who owe taxes for years. We met in here in December to write off taxes to benefit the people who should be in jail for not paying taxes. Now we are proposing also to write off the VAT from 1996 to 2000 for people who actually stole it.
“Government is giving away money that is not theirs to give away. This elitist Government that we have elected that said ‘Gimmuh de vote and watch muh’… well the people are watching and they don’t like what they are seeing . . . . Stop thinking about friends and family and look out for the best interest of this country.”
Senator Franklyn told the Upper House that while he understood that some businesses are facing financial challenges and may not be able to pay salary and income tax, VAT was in a different category.
He added: “If you are in business you may not make enough money to pay the salaries and the taxes. However, VAT is money you actually receive. So when you get it pay it over. When you collect VAT you are doing so as an agent of Government and when you refuse to pay that money, you are depriving the country… because you are stealing the money. And then the Government would decide to forgive thieves. The Government has no authority to forgive thieves.
Tron: In Defense of the Barbadian Judiciary
I don’t buy into the narrative at all that our local jurisdiction is slow and bad. The opposite is true, thanks to our Supreme Leader and her wise Attorney General Lord Marshal Dale. Some of our new judges are very tough, effective and fast. Significant progress. Thank you personally, dear Mia Mottley!
By the way, it is true all over the world that if you hire the right lawyers and know the right people, justice runs like clockwork.
@ angela cox
I’ll give you tow more examples:
(1). On November 20th, 2008, government wrote of a debt of $19.1 MILLION dollars for the Barbados Turf club.
(2). Caswell Franklyn – September 6, 2011.
By a notice published as S.I. 2011 No. 88 in the Official Gazette of July 28, 2011, the Minister of Finance waived the payment of LAND TAX by the Barbados Cruising Club for a nineteen-year period April 1, 1992 to March 31, 2011. The Minister forgave the payment of $125, 871.06.
I do not pretend to understand these weighty matters of state, and I am not questioning the Minister’s right to grant exemptions from the payment of land tax or any other tax. He has that right under the provisions of the Duties, Taxes and Other Payments (Exemption) Act, Chapter 67B of the Laws of Barbados. My concern is that while Government is squeezing every last cent out of the average Barbadian, why would it forgive the payment of land tax to people who can afford to own yachts and cruise as a hobby?
As I understand it, Government leased land to the Barbados Cruising Club to use for their members’ recreation. For the period of the lease the club should have been paying land tax on the property. They failed to do so. Rather than ensure compliance with the provisions of the Land Tax Act, and make sure that the country gets the much needed revenue, the Minister of Finance forgave the tax.
The Round Barbados Race took place on Errol Barrow Day, 21 January 2011
Who are these people who are so well placed that they can persuade Government to waive the payment of land tax on property that they use for recreation, while at the same time, the Commissioner of Land Tax is advertising the property, of small individuals, for sale for non payment of land tax.
This might be a very innocent transaction, but as a tax paying Barbadian, I would like to be assured that Government is not taking care of the boys at the expense of the average tax paying Barbadian.
Artax
U rightfully point to one business
However a precedent set does not in any way gives another govt the right to waived many more taxes to multiple businesses
Actually, I gave TWO examples, There are probably many more.
But, what’s important is, you seem to be admitting BOTH administrations were wrong to write off taxes.
Yes . it should have been handle differently especially money coming out of the treasury which by laws is due and payable
I do not understand what you meant by the comment, “especially money coming out of the treasury which by laws is due and payable.”
Please explain.
WARNING!!!
https://barbadostoday.bb/2021/03/06/pm-mottley-concerned-about-bajan-addictions/
In as much as the money was waived or voided
The lack of that money going to the treasury would be recorded as a deficit towards the treasury or money which should have been paid and wasnt by the Turf Club
“The lack of that money going to the treasury would be recorded as a deficit towards the treasury or money which should have been paid and wasnt by the Turf Club.”
You are incorrect.
Artax March 7, 2021 4:47 PM
“The lack of that money going to the treasury would be recorded as a deficit towards the treasury or money which should have been paid and wasnt by the Turf Club.”
You are incorrect
Say why
“The lack of that money going to the treasury would be recorded as a deficit towards the treasury…….”
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1069362316900515