How serious is the PLP?
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Dads in The Bahamas can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock
Dads to face court in new child laws
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
BAHAMIAN men can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock, based on new regulations that came on stream with the Child Protection Act in 2009.
The law could be of major use to children born out of wedlock if they knew their rights, according to Utah Taylor, founder of Find Your Parents Foundation, and host of Controversy TV.
Mr Taylor said a member of his non-profit foundation, who claims to have conclusive evidence of paternity, is currently battling for recognition from the person presumed to be his father.
"This is a high profile person. He went to the person and he said it is not possible. In another two days I am going to let him know about the law," said Mr Taylor.
The new regulations have not received the kind of attention they should have, according to Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Bahamas Crisis Centre, which is partly why the Crisis Centre launched its new monthly lecture series with a focus on fatherhood and the law.
"Before the new legislation a child born out of wedlock was what they called a 'nullius filius', which means a child of no man. It was just a child of the woman. But now with the legislation, a child born out of wedlock and a father of a child born out of wedlock can now be recognised in court as having status. If there is concern that the child is not being looked after the father can petition for custody," said Dr Patterson.
"It is a big problem. There are some fathers if they are not in a relationship with a woman they move on and they leave the children behind. It impacts boys more intensely, but girls too experience the effect of not having a father who is actively involved," she said.
If a child petitions the court for a declaration of paternity, the presumed father must prove he is not the father. The child could petition for the presumed person to submit to a paternity test, said Mr Taylor.
Although he was a presenter at the forum, he said he learned information that would have been useful in his own search for a father. It took him 34 years to find out who his biological father was.
"The law needs to be known. It should not be something just known to lawyers and politicians. The small man needs to know what is available to him. A single father needs to know he can petition the courts for parental control. All we know is we have to go to the courts to pay child support or maintenance," said Mr Taylor.
He said there are women who become "spiteful" because of the relationship problems and prevent fathers from having access to their children. He said some women demand child support or maintenance, but refuse to allow visitation rights.
"Fatherlessness and/or father hunger is recognized as a significant factor in the psyche and emotional functioning of boys and girls. We see this as creating a vacuum and a sense of incompleteness in many of our young people, contributing to boys' externalizing behaviour and their vulnerability to gangs and girls' vulnerability to older men and 'sugar daddies'," said a statement issued by the Crisis Centre.
Other presenters included Elsworth Johnson of the Eugene Dupuch Legal Aide Clinic and John Bostwick of Bostwick & Co.
The July lecture series is set to focus on the Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, which is a "ground breaking legislation", said Dr Patterson.
It provides a more comprehensive definition of domestic violence, and enables a broader range of groups to go before the courts for a domestic violence dispute: not just married couples, but those in intimate relationships, children, or anyone who is a victim of some kind of domestic violence.
The new law also allows the court to mandate perpetrators or partners to get help and mandates the police to take victims to the hospital.
June 26, 2010
tribune242
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
BAHAMIAN men can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock, based on new regulations that came on stream with the Child Protection Act in 2009.
The law could be of major use to children born out of wedlock if they knew their rights, according to Utah Taylor, founder of Find Your Parents Foundation, and host of Controversy TV.
Mr Taylor said a member of his non-profit foundation, who claims to have conclusive evidence of paternity, is currently battling for recognition from the person presumed to be his father.
"This is a high profile person. He went to the person and he said it is not possible. In another two days I am going to let him know about the law," said Mr Taylor.
The new regulations have not received the kind of attention they should have, according to Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Bahamas Crisis Centre, which is partly why the Crisis Centre launched its new monthly lecture series with a focus on fatherhood and the law.
"Before the new legislation a child born out of wedlock was what they called a 'nullius filius', which means a child of no man. It was just a child of the woman. But now with the legislation, a child born out of wedlock and a father of a child born out of wedlock can now be recognised in court as having status. If there is concern that the child is not being looked after the father can petition for custody," said Dr Patterson.
"It is a big problem. There are some fathers if they are not in a relationship with a woman they move on and they leave the children behind. It impacts boys more intensely, but girls too experience the effect of not having a father who is actively involved," she said.
If a child petitions the court for a declaration of paternity, the presumed father must prove he is not the father. The child could petition for the presumed person to submit to a paternity test, said Mr Taylor.
Although he was a presenter at the forum, he said he learned information that would have been useful in his own search for a father. It took him 34 years to find out who his biological father was.
"The law needs to be known. It should not be something just known to lawyers and politicians. The small man needs to know what is available to him. A single father needs to know he can petition the courts for parental control. All we know is we have to go to the courts to pay child support or maintenance," said Mr Taylor.
He said there are women who become "spiteful" because of the relationship problems and prevent fathers from having access to their children. He said some women demand child support or maintenance, but refuse to allow visitation rights.
"Fatherlessness and/or father hunger is recognized as a significant factor in the psyche and emotional functioning of boys and girls. We see this as creating a vacuum and a sense of incompleteness in many of our young people, contributing to boys' externalizing behaviour and their vulnerability to gangs and girls' vulnerability to older men and 'sugar daddies'," said a statement issued by the Crisis Centre.
Other presenters included Elsworth Johnson of the Eugene Dupuch Legal Aide Clinic and John Bostwick of Bostwick & Co.
The July lecture series is set to focus on the Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, which is a "ground breaking legislation", said Dr Patterson.
It provides a more comprehensive definition of domestic violence, and enables a broader range of groups to go before the courts for a domestic violence dispute: not just married couples, but those in intimate relationships, children, or anyone who is a victim of some kind of domestic violence.
The new law also allows the court to mandate perpetrators or partners to get help and mandates the police to take victims to the hospital.
June 26, 2010
tribune242
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) have no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in The Bahamas to date
'Scarier' financial industry threats may be to come
By CHESTER ROBARDS
Business Reporter
crobards@tribunemedia.net:
THERE has been "no effect" on the Bahamian financial services sector yet from the more than-20 Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA) signed recently, Arner Bank and Trust's general manager said yesterday, although he warned that "scarier" challenges were to come.
However, on a brighter note, he said TIEAs signed by the Bahamas in its bid to escape the G-20/OECD 'blacklist' threat had as yet had no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in the Bahamas.
Mr Thain warned, though, that the OECD could tighten the noose in the future, saying: "What will come in the future is scarier."
Speaking at a Bahamas Organisation of Compliance Officers' (BACO) Money Laundering Reporting Officer Day, Mr Thain said Switzerland's banks were at present feeling US demands for tax information on their clients.
He added that such pressure on Swiss banks could bode well for the Bahamas as a jurisdiction, only if it does not concede to the kind of pressure being imposed on Switzerland by its G-20 neighbours.
Mr Thain said it was likely that TIEAs will not be aggressively used by the countries the Bahamas signs up with, but this nation should continue to adhere to G-20/OECD demand without putting its reputationat risk.
"The Bahamas' Swiss operations 9bank subsidiaries] could become more important if the Bahamas can be strong in how we handle this," he said. "We will see inflows from Switzerland, as they are giving up too much."
Mr Thain added that the Bahamas can use opportunities like these to help the banking sector replant its roots and grow after so much evolution in such a short time.
Rowena Bethel, legal counsel for the Ministry of Finance, told BACO members that the Bahamas was gearing up for the Phase One peer review process required by the OECD to ensure it has met the tax information standards required by the body.
The peer review is scheduled to begin on July 1 and will last for up to six months.
In terms of how the Bahamas has done on its regulatory regimes and compliance as a country, she said: "We are looked at as a model."
June 25, 2010
tribune242
By CHESTER ROBARDS
Business Reporter
crobards@tribunemedia.net:
THERE has been "no effect" on the Bahamian financial services sector yet from the more than-20 Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA) signed recently, Arner Bank and Trust's general manager said yesterday, although he warned that "scarier" challenges were to come.
David Thain, who is also chairman of the Association of International Banks and Trusts (AIBT), said he was convinced much more intrusive initiatives will be churned out by G-20/OECD countries in the future, making previous efforts pale by comparison.
However, on a brighter note, he said TIEAs signed by the Bahamas in its bid to escape the G-20/OECD 'blacklist' threat had as yet had no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in the Bahamas.
Mr Thain warned, though, that the OECD could tighten the noose in the future, saying: "What will come in the future is scarier."
Speaking at a Bahamas Organisation of Compliance Officers' (BACO) Money Laundering Reporting Officer Day, Mr Thain said Switzerland's banks were at present feeling US demands for tax information on their clients.
He added that such pressure on Swiss banks could bode well for the Bahamas as a jurisdiction, only if it does not concede to the kind of pressure being imposed on Switzerland by its G-20 neighbours.
Mr Thain said it was likely that TIEAs will not be aggressively used by the countries the Bahamas signs up with, but this nation should continue to adhere to G-20/OECD demand without putting its reputationat risk.
"The Bahamas' Swiss operations 9bank subsidiaries] could become more important if the Bahamas can be strong in how we handle this," he said. "We will see inflows from Switzerland, as they are giving up too much."
Mr Thain added that the Bahamas can use opportunities like these to help the banking sector replant its roots and grow after so much evolution in such a short time.
Rowena Bethel, legal counsel for the Ministry of Finance, told BACO members that the Bahamas was gearing up for the Phase One peer review process required by the OECD to ensure it has met the tax information standards required by the body.
The peer review is scheduled to begin on July 1 and will last for up to six months.
In terms of how the Bahamas has done on its regulatory regimes and compliance as a country, she said: "We are looked at as a model."
June 25, 2010
tribune242
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Clifton Member of Parliament Kendal Wright (FNM) Will Not Retain His Party's Nomination to Run for the Area in the Next General Election
FNM's Clifton MP 'may not retain party's nomination'
tribune242:
TROUBLE may be brewing in the FNM's Clifton constituency as reports suggest that the incumbent Member of Parliament Kendal Wright may not be retaining the party's nomination to run for the area in the next general election.
According to reports reaching The Tribune, a young woman attorney from a prominent law firm was being put forward as the party's new "top pick" for the incumbent's seat.
As it is a well known secret that there is little love lost between Mr Wright and the party's leader Hubert Ingraham, some sources have suggested that this move could be designed to finally remove the MP from the party's backbench.
However, with the next general election less than 23 months away, other sources within the FNM have shot down such reports as mere PLP propaganda designed at "distracting" the party from its current work.
"The Prime Minister is busy at this time conducting the business of running the country. He is not even thinking about candidates at this point so such suggestions would be ludicrous at best. And one must remember, whatever the perception may be with regards to Mr Wright and the Prime Minister's relationship, a seat is a seat. Why would you run anyone in a constituency where you have an incumbent member?
"There are many other seats where young energetic candidates can be placed. Farm Road for instance is one that we would like to win. So that is where I believe you would see interest being placed," the source said.
Additionally, there have been reports from some political quarters that the government might replace the Clifton constituency totally by moving the boundary lines and recreating the former Adelaide constituency.
These new boundary lines, it was said, would consume the western part of New Providence in the constituencies of Adelaide in the south-west and Killarney to the west-north.
June 24, 2010
tribune242
tribune242:
TROUBLE may be brewing in the FNM's Clifton constituency as reports suggest that the incumbent Member of Parliament Kendal Wright may not be retaining the party's nomination to run for the area in the next general election.
According to reports reaching The Tribune, a young woman attorney from a prominent law firm was being put forward as the party's new "top pick" for the incumbent's seat.
As it is a well known secret that there is little love lost between Mr Wright and the party's leader Hubert Ingraham, some sources have suggested that this move could be designed to finally remove the MP from the party's backbench.
However, with the next general election less than 23 months away, other sources within the FNM have shot down such reports as mere PLP propaganda designed at "distracting" the party from its current work.
"The Prime Minister is busy at this time conducting the business of running the country. He is not even thinking about candidates at this point so such suggestions would be ludicrous at best. And one must remember, whatever the perception may be with regards to Mr Wright and the Prime Minister's relationship, a seat is a seat. Why would you run anyone in a constituency where you have an incumbent member?
"There are many other seats where young energetic candidates can be placed. Farm Road for instance is one that we would like to win. So that is where I believe you would see interest being placed," the source said.
Additionally, there have been reports from some political quarters that the government might replace the Clifton constituency totally by moving the boundary lines and recreating the former Adelaide constituency.
These new boundary lines, it was said, would consume the western part of New Providence in the constituencies of Adelaide in the south-west and Killarney to the west-north.
June 24, 2010
tribune242
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Election court lawyers want $400,000 from Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and defeated Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands
Election court lawyers want $400,000
By JUAN MCCARTNEY ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ juan@nasguard.com:
An already cash-strapped Public Treasury will be asked to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars, as the attorneys who represented Progressive Liberal Party Member of Parliament Ryan Pinder in the Elizabeth Election Court challenge earlier this year will ask for more than $400,000 from Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and defeated Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands.
The court costs will be comprised of a $357,000 bill for the actual court proceedings, and a $28,700 bill for services rendered involving Sands' unsuccessful bid to have Pinder's Election Court petition thrown out before the actual proceedings began, according to Wayne Munroe, one of the attorneys who represented Pinder.
On March 23 Election Court Senior Justices Anita Allen and John Isaacs ruled Pinder the winner of the challenge and ordered Bethel to pay 75 percent of Pinder's costs, with Sands responsible for the remaining 25 percent.
Pinder's lead counsel was Philip Brave Davis. He was assisted by Munroe, Valentine Grimes and Keod Smith.
Munroe said the bill for the strike out petition has been filed for some time, but the bill for the court proceedings will be filed today - the last day Munroe has to do so without asking for an extension.
The Supreme Court Registrar will then go over the bills item by item and decide if any alterations should be made.
Sands and Bethel are now faced with a bill $100,000 higher than they could have settled for.
Munroe said that Pinder's legal team offered Bethel and Sands' respective counsels an offer to settle the strike out bill at $20,000.
He added that Bethel and Sands' were also offered to settle the court proceedings at $275,000 but refused both offers.
Elizabeth Returning Officer (and Director of Immigration) Jack Thompson was also named as a respondent in the by-election court challenge, but was not ordered to pay costs.
The February 16 by-election ended with Sands receiving 1,501 votes to Pinder's 1,499 votes. However on March 23 the Election Court ruled that 5 protest votes cast in favor of Pinder should be counted, pushing Pinder's total to 1,504 votes, making him the winner of the seat.
Bethel was blasted in the justices' ruling, where it was said that he failed to protect the integrity of the Elizabeth register.
And as the PLP MP's legal team prepares to collect on Election Court costs, an FNM MP's legal counsel was still awaiting payment of his hefty bill up to a few weeks ago.
The Guardian understands that Fred Smith, who represented Marco City MP Zhivargo Laing in his successful challenge against former MP Pleasant Bridgewater, had still not received payment on his $1 million bill.
June 23, 2010
thenassauguardian
By JUAN MCCARTNEY ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ juan@nasguard.com:
An already cash-strapped Public Treasury will be asked to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars, as the attorneys who represented Progressive Liberal Party Member of Parliament Ryan Pinder in the Elizabeth Election Court challenge earlier this year will ask for more than $400,000 from Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and defeated Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands.
The court costs will be comprised of a $357,000 bill for the actual court proceedings, and a $28,700 bill for services rendered involving Sands' unsuccessful bid to have Pinder's Election Court petition thrown out before the actual proceedings began, according to Wayne Munroe, one of the attorneys who represented Pinder.
On March 23 Election Court Senior Justices Anita Allen and John Isaacs ruled Pinder the winner of the challenge and ordered Bethel to pay 75 percent of Pinder's costs, with Sands responsible for the remaining 25 percent.
Pinder's lead counsel was Philip Brave Davis. He was assisted by Munroe, Valentine Grimes and Keod Smith.
Munroe said the bill for the strike out petition has been filed for some time, but the bill for the court proceedings will be filed today - the last day Munroe has to do so without asking for an extension.
The Supreme Court Registrar will then go over the bills item by item and decide if any alterations should be made.
Sands and Bethel are now faced with a bill $100,000 higher than they could have settled for.
Munroe said that Pinder's legal team offered Bethel and Sands' respective counsels an offer to settle the strike out bill at $20,000.
He added that Bethel and Sands' were also offered to settle the court proceedings at $275,000 but refused both offers.
Elizabeth Returning Officer (and Director of Immigration) Jack Thompson was also named as a respondent in the by-election court challenge, but was not ordered to pay costs.
The February 16 by-election ended with Sands receiving 1,501 votes to Pinder's 1,499 votes. However on March 23 the Election Court ruled that 5 protest votes cast in favor of Pinder should be counted, pushing Pinder's total to 1,504 votes, making him the winner of the seat.
Bethel was blasted in the justices' ruling, where it was said that he failed to protect the integrity of the Elizabeth register.
And as the PLP MP's legal team prepares to collect on Election Court costs, an FNM MP's legal counsel was still awaiting payment of his hefty bill up to a few weeks ago.
The Guardian understands that Fred Smith, who represented Marco City MP Zhivargo Laing in his successful challenge against former MP Pleasant Bridgewater, had still not received payment on his $1 million bill.
June 23, 2010
thenassauguardian
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Holding people charged with murder for up to three years in Her Majesty's Prison without trial 'may be unconstitutional
Holding murder charged for up to three years 'may be unconstitutional'
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net:
THE Government's intent to amend the law to hold people charged with murder in Her Majesty's Prison for up to three years without trial may be "unconstitutional", with some in the legal community arguing it will violate human rights.
Currently, a person charged with murder or another serious offence can be granted bail if they have not been brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time. Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has indicated that his administration plans to specify in law that a reasonable amount of time would be three years.
It's a move by the Government to cut down on the number of offenders committing crimes while on bail, and assuage public outcry over those accused of murder being granted bail.
However, the decision has garnered criticism in the legal community.
Damian Gomez, partner in the law firm Chilcott Chambers, told The Tribune: "It's a violation of Article 20, it's a violation of Article 19 (of the constitution) and it's a violation of the common law which says that all citizens have the right not to be deprived of their liberty without some cause."
Mr Gomez, a former senator who has been practising law for more than 20 years, added that it is the fault of the police and prosecution for charging persons with serious offences without sufficient evidence in hand to try them quickly.
"If you charge someone with murder you ought to have enough evidence to proceed immediately. If you know the evidence that you have is insufficient to obtain a conviction, you have no basis then for charging them.
"The real issue is why haven't these people been tried within a reasonable amount of time?"
Attorney Paul Moss believes such a practice violates the human rights of innocent people who may be brought up on murder charges and are forced to languish behind bars for years while police and prosecution search for further evidence.
"Everyone wants a criminal to be locked up, but certainly people don't want the innocent to be locked up. Extending (holding) time to three years is not reasonable. I'm not sure that it's constitutional but certainly it is not the answer because all it means is that they are not on bail but after three years they will get bail and what do you do then, extend it to five years?
"If the government, because of its own failure, is unable to get people to court in a timely fashion, the constitution will not bend to them."
Last month, when speaking to Parliament about proposed amendments to the Bail Act and the issue of crime, Mr Ingraham said he is confident the changes will be lawful and stand up in court.
"The only time you cannot deny bail is when the person has not been tried within a reasonable period of time, but there is no such thing as an absolute right to bail, notwithstanding what anybody else says.
"And it is our intention in the Bahamas to propose that in the context of the Bahamas, a reasonable period of time is three years. We are satisfied that such a provision will withstand any challenge before all competent courts of jurisdiction for the Bahamas."
June 22, 2010
tribune242
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net:
THE Government's intent to amend the law to hold people charged with murder in Her Majesty's Prison for up to three years without trial may be "unconstitutional", with some in the legal community arguing it will violate human rights.
Currently, a person charged with murder or another serious offence can be granted bail if they have not been brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time. Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has indicated that his administration plans to specify in law that a reasonable amount of time would be three years.
It's a move by the Government to cut down on the number of offenders committing crimes while on bail, and assuage public outcry over those accused of murder being granted bail.
However, the decision has garnered criticism in the legal community.
Damian Gomez, partner in the law firm Chilcott Chambers, told The Tribune: "It's a violation of Article 20, it's a violation of Article 19 (of the constitution) and it's a violation of the common law which says that all citizens have the right not to be deprived of their liberty without some cause."
Mr Gomez, a former senator who has been practising law for more than 20 years, added that it is the fault of the police and prosecution for charging persons with serious offences without sufficient evidence in hand to try them quickly.
"If you charge someone with murder you ought to have enough evidence to proceed immediately. If you know the evidence that you have is insufficient to obtain a conviction, you have no basis then for charging them.
"The real issue is why haven't these people been tried within a reasonable amount of time?"
Attorney Paul Moss believes such a practice violates the human rights of innocent people who may be brought up on murder charges and are forced to languish behind bars for years while police and prosecution search for further evidence.
"Everyone wants a criminal to be locked up, but certainly people don't want the innocent to be locked up. Extending (holding) time to three years is not reasonable. I'm not sure that it's constitutional but certainly it is not the answer because all it means is that they are not on bail but after three years they will get bail and what do you do then, extend it to five years?
"If the government, because of its own failure, is unable to get people to court in a timely fashion, the constitution will not bend to them."
Last month, when speaking to Parliament about proposed amendments to the Bail Act and the issue of crime, Mr Ingraham said he is confident the changes will be lawful and stand up in court.
"The only time you cannot deny bail is when the person has not been tried within a reasonable period of time, but there is no such thing as an absolute right to bail, notwithstanding what anybody else says.
"And it is our intention in the Bahamas to propose that in the context of the Bahamas, a reasonable period of time is three years. We are satisfied that such a provision will withstand any challenge before all competent courts of jurisdiction for the Bahamas."
June 22, 2010
tribune242
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sightings of suspected oil in the seas around the Bahamas from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to be investigated
Scientists to investigate suspected oil sightings in Bahamian waters
By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Staff Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net:
SCIENTISTS and volunteers are expected to set out today on a five-day expedition to Cay Sal and Bimini to investigate sightings of suspected oil in the seas around the Bahamas from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) scientists and volunteers will take sediment samples and test them on the Defence Force vessel HMS Bahamas to confirm or deny the presence of oil in Bahamian waters.
The scientists include leading marine ecologist Dr Ethan Freid and marine biologist Kathleen Sealy from the IMO.
Environment Minister Earl Deveaux said: "The group going to Cay Sal will continue any pre-impact assessment. This group will do a more detailed assessment than the first group.
"We are doing it to ensure that we have documented proof of the conditions that existed prior to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
"The likelihood of fresh oil coming to the Bahamas is indeed remote. The oil is approaching 60 days old from the first spill. We are, according to all the best scientific information, likely to get oil that is weathered in the form of tar balls. What we do not know about is the expanse of the dispersense and what impact they would have and that's why we want to document the conditions in advance of any impact from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill so we can measure it going forward."
According to Mr Deveaux, all the initial expenses for the pre-impact assessment is being handled through NEMA.
"The companies in Grand Bahama have in stock more than 30 per cent of any necessary equipment that we would use if we were required to respond to say, Cay Sal, Bimini, Freeport Harbor or West End. These are the proximate areas where the likelihood of land fall would first occur," Mr Deveaux said.
More than 1,000 people have volunteered to assist in the oil spill clean-up effort, said Mr Deveaux.
"I think the issue we would have would not be the number of persons willing to assist but how we would coordinate the level of preparedness to assist to make it most effective," Mr Deveaux said.
The Attorney General's office is exploring all legal options in the event the government has to seek recompense from any impact the BP oil disaster has on the Bahamas.
"We have taken the information we have to date, and the Attorney General's office is exploring all of legal options with respects to British Petroleum and the United Kingdom in the event we seek recompose from any disaster that hits the Bahamas. We hope that none does," the Minister added.
June 21, 2010
tribune242
By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Staff Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net:
SCIENTISTS and volunteers are expected to set out today on a five-day expedition to Cay Sal and Bimini to investigate sightings of suspected oil in the seas around the Bahamas from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) scientists and volunteers will take sediment samples and test them on the Defence Force vessel HMS Bahamas to confirm or deny the presence of oil in Bahamian waters.
The scientists include leading marine ecologist Dr Ethan Freid and marine biologist Kathleen Sealy from the IMO.
Environment Minister Earl Deveaux said: "The group going to Cay Sal will continue any pre-impact assessment. This group will do a more detailed assessment than the first group.
"We are doing it to ensure that we have documented proof of the conditions that existed prior to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
"The likelihood of fresh oil coming to the Bahamas is indeed remote. The oil is approaching 60 days old from the first spill. We are, according to all the best scientific information, likely to get oil that is weathered in the form of tar balls. What we do not know about is the expanse of the dispersense and what impact they would have and that's why we want to document the conditions in advance of any impact from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill so we can measure it going forward."
According to Mr Deveaux, all the initial expenses for the pre-impact assessment is being handled through NEMA.
"The companies in Grand Bahama have in stock more than 30 per cent of any necessary equipment that we would use if we were required to respond to say, Cay Sal, Bimini, Freeport Harbor or West End. These are the proximate areas where the likelihood of land fall would first occur," Mr Deveaux said.
More than 1,000 people have volunteered to assist in the oil spill clean-up effort, said Mr Deveaux.
"I think the issue we would have would not be the number of persons willing to assist but how we would coordinate the level of preparedness to assist to make it most effective," Mr Deveaux said.
The Attorney General's office is exploring all legal options in the event the government has to seek recompense from any impact the BP oil disaster has on the Bahamas.
"We have taken the information we have to date, and the Attorney General's office is exploring all of legal options with respects to British Petroleum and the United Kingdom in the event we seek recompose from any disaster that hits the Bahamas. We hope that none does," the Minister added.
June 21, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)