Deal with the real problems
Reference is made to the publication in the Barbados Advocate of Wednesday, May 17, 2017, under the caption “Bar Association expresses concerns”. The basis of those concerns was that the Association was unhappy about “one of [its] members being verbally attacked by a Government Minister for acting within his rights as a citizen in going to the Law Courts to question the ruling Democratic Labour Party’s approval of the multi-million Hyatt Hotel”.
The Association was particularly incensed because it interpreted a Member of Parliament’s declaration in Parliament that anyone who was opposed to the building of the hotel was “an enemy of the state” as a direct reference to its member, Mr. David Commissiong, who has initiated litigation surrounding the Hyatt Hotel Project.
This stand taken by the Bar Association is worthy of scrutiny for a number of reasons. The Association is a creature of statute, namely The Barbados Bar Association Act, Cap. 636 of the Laws of Barbados. The Rules made under that statute set out the several aims and objectives of the Association and, among these, is “to improve the administration of justice…”
On Monday, May 15, 2017 there appeared on a first page article in this very newspaper that, in reference to the Hyatt case involving Mr. Commissiong, focused on the efficient administration of justice and the public conduct of Mr. Commissiong in the same case, which we considered bordered on the contemptuous.
It is worthy of note that nowhere in its public utterance has either of these issues been addressed; instead the Association has taken up a purely political issue; namely, a parliamentarian’s assessment of what he, as a politician, considers to be an unreasonable obstacle to the execution of his Government’s policy.
Having therefore ventured into the area of partisan politics in this issue, the Bar Association should explain publicly whether, as an Association whose aim is to improve the administration of justice, its greater concern should not be that its member’s urgent application has been twice adjourned because the case was set before two judges who, someone must have been aware, were going on vacation.
In addition, while exhibiting its new-found mettle, it should inform the public whether this unusual press statement was the result of a resolution of the general body or was, rather, merely the personal view of its president (who shares chambers with an opposition politician) being passed off as the view of the Barbados Bar Association.
It should disclose too what professional interest it has demonstrated in relieving the plight of some of its members who daily sit in Courts awaiting the commencement of hearings as late as 11 a.m. in spite of there being a statutory commencement time of 9 a.m.
The Association should also advise whether it is truly representative of a body comprising over a reported 1200 members when its president can be elected by a vote of 35 members in her favour. What has it been doing to address these pertinent issues that have been plaguing the effective administration of justice in Barbados?
As we understand it, Mr. Commissiong has applied to the Court for a remedy under the Town Planning Act of Barbados: he claims that as an “aggrieved person” he is entitled to make the application to the Court. The pleadings reveal that one source of his grievance is that the body of his late father is interred at the nearby Bethel Methodist Church; another is that he owns a parcel of land in Crumpton Street. The Court will in time have an opportunity to assess these bases of his grievance.
In the meantime, however, the public will have adequate opportunity to assess the efficacy of the Bar Association assuming the mantle of watch dog, which has plunged it straight into the arena of party politics while leaving its statutory and collective mandate largely unattended.
(Published by The Barbados Advocate.)