Submitted by Resisting Sharks

SHATTERING THE FACADE
Michelle Russell’s piece highlighting the “sexual harassment of young attorneys and the problematic power dynamics” within Barbados’ legal profession, exposes just the tip of an iceberg in Barbados’ systemic exploitation,  predatory professional conduct, abuse of power positions, sexual harassment, financial exploitation, and institutional protection of wrongdoers. 

Her observations deserve amplification with concrete examples that demonstrate how deeply these issues continue to penetrate Barbadian society, where victims face a triple threat: first the exploitation itself, then the institutional stonewalling when seeking justice, and finally the social stigma when speaking out.

POWER PLAYERS AND PREDATORY PRACTICES
The ‘old boys’ network’ and power dynamics she describes in her article, permeate every professional sector in Barbados. Take, for instance, the banking sector: young property owners seeking legitimate loans find themselves vulnerable to predatory practices. A case from  a prominent Broad Street bank shows how a senior banker exploited his position of trust, eventually turning a professional relationship into a “personal relationship” of power play, that resulted in property disputes. 

This case led to a disturbing chain of events involving multiple authority figures, including the late Theodore Walcott, a former magistrate/lawyer, revealing how power networks systematically prey on the vulnerable, then masterfully twist narratives to blame victims, who dare to speak out against their exploitation. 

THE JUDICIAL MAZE
Consider a documented case involving the same, late Theodore Walcott, a former magistrate/lawyer, who demonstrated how position and power can be abused. During a divorce case, he established an inappropriate personal relationship with a vulnerable client, later using his position to keep the remortgage funds of $50,000 paid to him, as the acting lawyer by the bank. This brings into question why banks pay mortgage funds to lawyers and not just their fees?

The case eventually reached Justice Frederick Waterman’s court, who had presided over the original divorce. Notably, Waterman dismissed Walcott’s claims, about being owed fees, openly acknowledging that he “well remembered how too intimately close, Walcott was in the divorce,”  a clear recognition of the fact that ethical boundaries had been breached. Yet, this recognition led to no broader professional consequences, exemplifying how the system protects its own. Even when a judge identifies unethical behaviour, it remains contained within that specific case, without triggering systemic change.

FROM CHAMPIONS TO COMPROMISE?
The pattern continued with the documented Wren Herbert vehicle incident, where complaints to the Bar Association went unacknowledged and not acted upon. Most telling was Dale Marshall’s response as Attorney General, dismissing Herbert’s actions of keeping the vehicle’s funds as “more of a personal arrangement.” 

This from the same Marshall who once championed against such practices as a young upcoming attorney in Waterman’s court (indicated above). This shift from advocate to ‘excuse maker’ raises questions about how deeply entrenched these problems are, when even those who once fought against “the system” can eventually seem to develop selective vision.

BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS: WEAPONIZING THE SYSTEM
Even dealing with government institutions, up to the Ombudsman, becomes an exercise in total frustration for citizens, when communication to these institutions remains unanswered, unacknowledged and unresolved. As there is a  deliberate nature of obstruction and partiality where bureaucracy becomes a tool of control and power. This systemic failure forces citizens to seek legal intervention for what should be straightforward administrative processes, creating yet another layer of opportunity for exploitation. 

When citizens have to engage legal representation just to get basic governmental institutional responses, we’ve moved from administrative inefficiency to institutional subjectivity and dysfunction. Yet those who haven’t experienced this labyrinth of bureaucratic stonewalling often pass judgments, without understanding the complex web of frustration and exploitation that traps ordinary citizens and cause hardships. Where institutions and accountable individuals don’t just ignore their responsibilities,  they band together in a calculated display of contempt, transforming public service into a private club,  that mocks the very citizens they’re meant to serve.

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF SILENCE
Michelle’s observation about people being more upset about these issues being discussed than about their existence, rings particularly true. Barbadians need to stop treating these adverse practices as ‘business as usual’ and understand that if as a country on the whole, we are to make the lives of people better, we have to start by acknowledging that this systemic exploitation and abuse of power, isn’t just about individual bad actions, but it’s deeply woven into the social fabric and has to change. 

When professionals meant to protect citizens instead prey on them, when oversight bodies turn a blind eye, and are even complicit, when those in power protect their own at the expense of justice, we’re not just failing as a society, we’re actively enabling further abuse. The Barbados projected to the world, of paradise and progress, needs to match the reality citizens face. Until these uncomfortable truths are confronted, and real accountability measures, are implemented, we’re just perpetuating a cycle of abuse that destroys lives and erodes the very foundation of society.

This isn’t about pointing fingers; it’s about acknowledging that our silence and acceptance of these practices, makes everyone complicit. Real change requires more than new laws, it requires a fundamental shift in how power, responsibility, and justice in Barbados is viewed and exercised.