Constitutional reform - pt. 14... ...the need for a new Caribbean jurisprudence... ...Caribbean Judges should be encouraged to demonstrate flexibility in developing our constitutional jurisprudence in the Commonwealth Caribbean

Constitutional reform pt. 14

The constitution: Limitations in enforcement of Bill of Rights

By Alfred Sears

The fundamental rights guaranteed to us under the constitution contain a number of limitations which impede the effective enforcement of the Bill of Rights under Commonwealth Caribbean constitutions and demonstrate the need for a new Caribbean jurisprudence.

The first limitation is the existence of broad derogation clauses in these constitutions.  While most of the derogation clauses are fairly standard, however, in The Bahamas Constitution the derogation clauses to the protection from arbitrary search and entry are in the broadest terms excusing any action reasonably required, “in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town or country planning, the development or utilization of any other property in such manner as to promote the public benefit.”

As Professor Lloyd Barnett in the essay “The Present Position Regarding the Enforcement of Human Rights in the Commonwealth” (October 1980) 2 W.I.L.J. 97 cautions, these derogation clauses are “... all imprecise in nature, and leave the door open to unnecessary legislative encroachments.”

The second limitation in the enforcement of personal liberties under these constitutions involves the existence of saving clauses, which preserve existing written and unwritten law from invalidation because of inconsistency with provisions of the Bill of Rights provisions.

The former Chief Justice of The Bahamas Telford Georges, in an essay “The Scope and Limitations of the State Machinery”, Int’l Comm’n of Jurists and Organization of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Association, Human Rights and Development (1978), speaking of a similar clause in the constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, argues that such a clause “... considerably limits the scope of the machinery of judicial review as a method of enforcement of the rights apparently enshrined in the constitution.  The judicial view... is that the constitutions create no new rights.  They merely preserve existing rights.”

The case of Re Thornhill illustrates how rights stated in a Bill of Rights provision in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago was weakened by a pre-existing common law rule.  Thornhill, who had been arrested on multiple charges, alleged that the police had denied him the right to communicate with the lawyer of his choice.  The pre-republican constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, Section 2 (2) (ii), stated that no act of Parliament should deprive a person who has been arrested or detained of the right to retain and instruct without delay a legal adviser of his or her choice and to hold communication with him.  Therefore, the defendant asked the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago to declare, inter alia, that the police had contravened his constitutional right to legal counsel immediately after arrest.

The attorney general argued that there was no right to counsel at common law therefore it did not exist under the constitution, since existing law had been preserved and could not be invalidated even if inconsistent with the constitution.

Justice Telford Georges, then the chief justice of Trinidad and Tobago and the trial judge, rejected this view and stated: “I hold that the right now exists because the constitution has proclaimed that it has always existed here and that it should continue to exist.”

The learned judge reasoned that the phrase “without delay” must not mean at the convenience of the investigators or at the stage where definable rights could be won or lost, but rather it “... is a right which arises immediately after arrest and that the right to exercise the right should be afforded without delay.”

The High Court of Trinidad and Tobago rejected this argument and concluded that the Bill of Rights was not intended to enlarge that body of rights which existed prior to the constitution.  However, the principal judgment of the High Court was based on another ground.  The court held that the police are not law servants of the state and as such they act independently; therefore, their actions could not be the basis for recovery for infringement, abrogation or abridgment of a fundamental right.

This decision by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago elicited widespread criticism from legal commentators in the Caribbean.  Dr. Francis Alexis, for example in the essay “After Thornhill: Does Anything Remain of the Bill of Rights?”, West Indian Law Journal, October 1977, argued that this decision by the High Court was “ ... a neat illustration of the dangerous cul-de-sac towards which the courts can be impelled by holding fast to the singularly unfortunate doctrine that the Bill of Rights did not create any right where before there was none.”

Regarding the issue of whether the police are public servants or independent agents, Alexis pointed out that, unlike in England where the responsibility for financing the different police services is divided between the central government and local police authorities, in the Caribbean the financing, maintenance and control of the police services is exclusively by central government, notwithstanding public and police service commissions.  Alexis concluded that: “Perhaps the ordinary individual’s most frequent contact with the state administration is that with the police ... If, therefore, the police are excluded from the ambit of the Bill of Rights one may suggest .... that the Court of Appeal in Thornhill said an obituary on the Bill of Rights.”

However, this dire prediction was not realized, as the Privy Council reversed the Trinidadian Court of Appeal and held that an arrested or detained person has a right to consult counsel without delay after arrest or detention even while being in police custody, thereby affirming the judgment of Georges at the first instance.

The net effect of the saving clauses in Caribbean constitutions has been to weaken and create ambiguity about fundamental rights stated with apparent clarity in the constitutions; thus, undermining the clear intent of the framers of the constitutions of these newly independent countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean.

 

A further limitation

The third limitation in the enforcement of the Bills of Rights concerns the common law rules of construction often applied by the courts in constitutional interpretation which is based on notions derived from the British doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.  Sir Leonard Knowles, former chief justice of The Bahamas, in regard to the rules of construction applied to constitutional interpretation in the Commonwealth Caribbean, quoted Lord Diplock, who in Hinds v. The Queen (1976) 2 W.I.R. 372 stated that: “To seek to apply to constitutional instruments the canons of construction applicable to ordinary legislation in the fields of substantive criminal or civil law would, in their lordships’ view, be misleading ... there can be discerned in all those constitutions which have their origin in an act of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster or an order in council, a common pattern of style of draftsmanship which may conveniently be described as the Westminster model.”

The Privy Council in Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher (1979) 3 All E. reiterated this principle R. 21.  At issue here was a provision of the Bermuda constitution which permitted legislative derogation from the right of freedom of movement of persons who did not “belong to Bermuda”.’

The Privy Council held that in construing the constitutional definition of “persons who belong to Bermuda”, the common law presumption that the word “child” excludes illegitimate children should not be followed.

Lord Wilberforce cautioned that a constitution should not be interpreted like an act of Parliament, but that it requires “principles of interpretation of its own suitable to its character as already described, without necessary acceptance of all of the presumptions that are relevant to legislation of private law”.

In spite of the Privy Council’s apparently clear position that a constitution should not be interpreted like ordinary legislation, Lloyd Barnett, using the Nasralla case as an example, observes that in the Caribbean “frequently in constitutional cases judges state the principle of construction in a form which is indistinguishable from that utilized in the interpretation of ordinary statutes... the approach to constitutional interpretation has been largely dominated by English techniques of statutory interpretation”.

 

The American context

It is instructive to contrast this practice of constitutional interpretation in the Caribbean with constitutional practice in the United States.  In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the freedoms and rights of the individual, facilitated through the power of judicial review established by the case Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137.

Professor Henry M. Hart in the essay “The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic” 66 Harv. L. Rev. (1953) 1362, argues that protection of the U.S. Bill of Rights is an essential function of the court the jurisdiction of which cannot be destroyed by Congress.

Using the political process rationale developed by Justice Stone, he contends that the Supreme Court  is the guardian of the freedoms of the individual and the protection of minorities against the state and majoritarianism.  However, Professor Derrick A. Bell, Jr. in  Race, Racism and American Law (2nd ed. 1980) contends that the U.S. Supreme Court has not been consistent in maintaining this “essential function” with respect to the fundamental rights of African-American citizens, as illustrated by the cases Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393 and the Slaughter-House (1873) 83 U.S. 36 cases.

Bell posits that the court’s role has been paradoxical in this area, swinging from extreme conservatism during the Post Civil War Reconstruction era to healthy activism during the civil rights era, the latter illustrated by decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, and Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) 384 U.S. 641.  Bell concludes that the degree of progress that African-Americans have made away from slavery and towards equality has depended on whether allowing blacks more or less opportunity best served the interests and aims of white society.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an equality revolution begun by the Warren Court, established a dual standard of constitutional review, rational standard and the strict scrutiny standard and has readily found that all disadvantaging classifications resting on race and ethnicity are suspect and violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, treating discrimination based on national origin the same as discrimination against African-Americans in such cases as Yick Woo v. Hopkins, Hernandez v. Texas and Trimble v. Gordon.

Justice Black, in Korematsu v. United States (1944) 323 U.S. 214, stated that the court in such situations will use a strict scrutiny standard of judicial review and not the rational basis standard normally applied to legislation: “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.  It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.  Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions, racial antagonism never will.

Thus, the court has outlawed invidious group differentiation which is irrelevant to a person’s capabilities and contributions.  The court, in the case Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S. 202 also invalidated a Texas statute permitting local school boards to deny free education to school-aged children of illegal aliens as violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual liberties.  In Griswold Justice Douglas, using a penumbra theory, held that the right of privacy, though not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, is nevertheless protected against unnecessarily broad state regulation.  He posited that some of the explicit provisions of the Bill of Rights created a zone of privacy.  He concluded that the right of married persons to use contraceptives fell within this penumbra.

In Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 133, Justice Blackman held that this right of privacy includes a pregnant woman’s control over her own body and that her right to abortion was as an aspect of the right of privacy.   Professor Lung-Chu Chen in the essay “Institutions Specialized to the Protection of Human Rights in the United States” 1 N.Y.L. Sch., Human Rights Annual 27 (1983), argues that the flexible, contextual approach of the U.S. Supreme Court in constitutional interpretation has resulted in more human rights protection for more people in more areas, extending to all important value sectors.  Caribbean Judges should be encouraged to demonstrate similar flexibility in developing our constitutional jurisprudence in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

 

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

November 22, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional Reform - pt. 13... ...I urge that the Constitutional Review Commission recommend the removal of derogation clause 4 (e) from Article 26 of the Constitution ...in order to affirm the constitutional norm of non-discrimination ...regularize and tax the Bahamian community gaming industry ...and open casino gaming to Bahamian ownership, management ...and patronage

Constitutional reform - pt. 12... ...I therefore recommend that Article 23 of the constitution be amended to include a specific guarantee for freedom of the press ...in order to better protect the community’s interest in integrity in public administration ...through robust scrutiny by an independent press

Constitutional reform pt. 12

Freedom of expression

By Alfred Sears

In a democratic society there is no greater right than the right of citizens to know what the government is doing on their behalf, which includes the right to hold opinions, to receive and express ideas and information without interference.  The constitution guarantees our right to freely express ourselves by engaging in open political debate amongst ourselves as well as to engage in political discourse with our elected officials and with candidates who offer themselves for public office.

Article 23 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression to every person in The Bahamas that provides that:

1. Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purpose of this article the said freedom includes freedom to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.

2. Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision –

(a) which is reasonably required –

(i) in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or

(ii) for the purpose of protecting the rights, reputations and freedom of other persons, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless, broadcasting, television, public exhibitions or public entertainment; or

(iii) which imposes restrictions upon persons holding office under the Crown or upon members of disciplined force, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

This guarantee is meaningless unless there is reasonable access to the broadcast media and protection of the media.  Therefore, the issuance of private broadcast licenses in The Bahamas beginning around 1994 has allowed greater freedom of expression in The Bahamas.

The Court of Appeal of Belize in the Belize Broadcasting Authority v. Courtenay (1986) 38 WIR 79, dealing with a provision, identical to Article 23 of the Bahamian Constitution, under the Constitution of Belize, held that to broadcast on radio and television is “today an integral part of the freedom of expression and to place the need for the authority’s consent before one can do what is an integral part of the freedom constitutes a hindrance to that freedom.”  Access to the broadcast media is especially important in an archipelago, like The Bahamas, where people are scattered over many different islands separated by a wide expanse of water.

The Privy Council has held that fear of criticism cannot justify hindering the public access to the broadcast media and access to the broadcast media by political opponents.  In the case Hector v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2 All E. R. 103, per Lord Bridge, held that: “In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism.  Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.  At the same time it is no less obvious that the very purpose of criticism leveled at those who have the conduct of stewardship is to persuade the electorate that the opponents would make a better job of it than those presently holding office...”.

In the United States, the First Amendment of the constitution declares that the Congress shall not abridge the freedom of the press.  However, in the Constitution of The Bahamas, there is no specific mention of the press or the guarantee of press freedom.  In The Bahamas, the laws of defamation and a fear of offending a prime minister or other elected officials often places a restraint on robust investigative reporting on politically sensitive matters.  A number of journalists in The Bahamas have been prosecuted, sued or threatened with prosecution for criticizing aspects of the public administration in The Bahamas.  The community interests, integrity and honesty in public administration can be compromised when the people and the press do not enjoy absolute privilege to criticize public officials.  This privilege should include matters of public concern, public officials and candidates for public office.  As the United States Supreme Court stated, in the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and may well include vehement caustic and sometimes unpleasant sharp attacks on government and public officials, an occasional erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.  Save and except in cases of malice, the press should be unfettered in its criticism and scrutiny of public administration in The Bahamas.

I therefore recommend that Article 23 of the constitution be amended to include a specific guarantee for freedom of the press in order to better protect the community’s interest in integrity in public administration through robust scrutiny by an independent press.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Nov 08, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 11... ...The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways: ...(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution... ...(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest ...or as part of an association or interest group ...to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution

Constitutional reform - pt. 11... ...The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways: ...(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution... ...(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest ...or as part of an association or interest group ...to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution

Constitutional reform pt. 11

By ALFRED SEARS

Chapter one of the constitution states that the constitution is the supreme law of The Bahamas in the following terms: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and, subject to the provision of this constitution, if any other law is inconsistent with this constitution, this constitution, shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

In a political culture where the political directorate is perceived to be the highest law of the land, it is the constitution which is the supreme law and should any other law be inconsistent, that other law would be declared null and void and of no effect.  The prime minister, the Cabinet and Parliament are subject to the constitution and any executive action which contravenes a provision of the Constitution can be declared to be null and void and of no effect by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, through the power of judicial review, can examine any law passed by the Parliament or any action by the executive branch of government to determine whether it is consistent with the constitution.  If it were found that a law or an action by the executive branch is inconsistent with the constitution, the court can declare it unconstitutional and award a remedy to the aggrieved person.

A case

The supremacy of the constitution was dramatically affirmed in the case D’Arcy Ryan v. Attorney General (1977).  In this case, Ryan had applied to become a citizen of The Bahamas on October 24, 1974, pursuant to Article 5 of the constitution.  Ryan had been living in The Bahamas as his primary residence from 1947 and received belonger status in 1966.  He was married to a citizen of The Bahamas and all of his seven children of the marriage had been born in The Bahamas.  Ryan was informed on June 16, 1975 that the minister of home affairs had refused his application.  The minister gave no reason for his refusal of the application.  Ryan instituted legal proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that upon the true construction of the constitution he was entitled to be registered as a citizen of The Bahamas and that section seven of the Bahamas Nationality Act, 1973 and was ultra vires the constitution.  Two justices, sitting as a division of the Supreme Court, held that the purported decision of the minister was a nullity and referred the matter back to the minister to be reconsidered in accordance to law.  The attorney general appealed the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that section seven (a) – (e) of the Bahamas Nationality Act was not ultra vires, but that the proviso thereto was ultra vires the constitution, as it did not prescribe any ground on which the minister could base his refusal.  The Court of Appeal found that the minister’s refusal to grant Ryan’s application for citizenship was therefore a nullity.  The attorney general appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council.  Lord Diplock, writing for the Privy Council in 1979, held that: “Their Lordships accordingly propose humbly to advise Her Majesty that for the single declaration made by the Court of Appeal, the following declarations as to the several questions of law that have been raised by these proceedings should be made:

(1) A declaration that the minister’s decision of 28 May 1975 to refuse the plaintiff’s application dated 27 June 1974 for registration as a citizen of The Bahamas is null and void.

(2) A declaration that the final words of the proviso to section seven of The Bahamas Nationality Act, 1973, viz: ‘or if for any other sufficient reason of public policy he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the applicant should become a citizen of The Bahamas’ are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and are void.

(3) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to have his application for registration as a citizen of The Bahamas dated 27 June 1974 reconsidered by the minister according to law, as it has been stated in their lordships’ reasons for their humble advice to her majesty in this appeal.”

The Ryan case demonstrates that the court, if inconsistent with the constitution, can declare ministerial decisions, null and void.

Notwithstanding the clear direction by the Privy Council in 1979 that Ryan should be given Bahamian citizenship as a matter of constitutional entitlement, the government did not issue Ryan a Bahamian passport until 1993.  This case illustrates the need for citizens in a democratic society to be vigilant to ensure that the guarantees enshrined in the constitution are in fact observed by the state.

Recommendation

The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways:

(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution;

(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest, or as part of an association or interest group, to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Nov 01, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 10... ...The government should commission The College of the Bahamas and the Eugene Dupuch Law School to conduct a scientific study to determine the comparative deterrence between the death penalty and life imprisonment ...to inform public education and policy on the issue of the death penalty... ...

Constitutional reform, pt. 8: ... ...The right of a citizen to good health and a clean environment

Constitutional reform, pt. 8


By ALFRED SEARS


Sir Lynden Pindling, one of the founding fathers of our Constitution, in an address at the Colloquium on Political Reform, Constitutional Change and National Development at The College of The Bahamas on June 23, 1998, advocated that we expand the fundamental rights protected under the Bill of Rights of the Bahamian Constitution to include: “The right of a citizen to good health and a clean environment.”

Protection of the environment

The Bahamian Constitution, as a living document, should be amended, like the United States Constitution which itself has been amended 27 times, to reflect the shared expectations of and experiences of succeeding generations of Bahamians.

Today, due to the lack of a rational development strategy, we are faced with the rapid loss of aspects of the natural environment and cultural heritage of The Bahamas.  The current national development strategy of development, based on attracting large foreign direct investments in resort tourism, has transformed the physical landscape and way of life of communities throughout the archipelago of The Bahamas.

There needs to be a firm balance between development and preservation of physical and cultural environment.  While the current development strategy has created jobs for Bahamians, it is having an adverse impact on the environment, the quality of life of future generations of Bahamians, who will have to live pollution filled lives, without easy access to the beaches, historical and cultural sites, damped waste in our waters from cruise ships and others in the Bahamian territorial waters, the destruction of marine life and the coral reefs.

The patrimony of future generations of Bahamians will be destroyed, unless we treat the right to good health and a clean environment as fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

The right of every Bahamian community to preserve its quality of life and be consulted before any public decision is taken to approve the construction and operation of projects that may adversely affect a Bahamian community was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of The Bahamas in the case of Responsible Development of Abaco (RDA) Ltd v. The Right Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham and Others SCCivApp. No. 138 of 2010.

The issue related to a decision of BEC to construct a power plant at Wilson City, Abaco, and the right of the community to be adequately consulted before the decision was taken.  In a judgment by the Justice Allen, president of the Court of Appeal, in which Justices of Appeal Blackman and John both concurred, she observed, at paragraph 15, that, “It cannot be doubted that the exercise of that power was subject to the rights or legitimate expectations of residents of The Bahamas generally, and in this case to the rights and legitimate expectations of residents of Wilson City, in particular, not to have their quality of life adversely affected by the construction and operation of the power plant in their neighborhood.”

At the hearing of the appeal, the power plant had already been constructed, nevertheless the Court of Appeal ordered BEC to conduct a process of full and proper public consultation with the community of Abaco on the operation of the plant going forward.  The court held that “the appellants had a legitimate expectation to be adequately and meaningfully consulted in the decision-making process relative to the location and construction of the power plant at Wilson City, Abaco, which was breached by the respondents.”

United States experience

The United States federal regulation of the environment is based on the National Environmental Policy Act, 1970, under which is established the council on environmental quality, which advises the president.  The Environmental Protection Agency was also created in 1970.  The Common Sense Initiative Council, comprising representatives of government, business and environmentalists take an industry specific approach to solving environmental problems.

One feature of the United States legislations which is instructive is the “private attorneys general” provision which enables an individual to challenge government’s environmental decisions such as the grant of a permit and generally to demand both government and private sector compliance with the law.  For example, the Endangered Species Act contains a provision which states that “any person may commence a civil suit” to enforce the provisions under the act.

In rejecting the secretary of the interior’s position that the petitioner lacked the requisite standing, Justice Scalia, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Bennet v. Spear 117 S.Ct. 1154 (1997), held: “That the overall subject matter of this legislation is the environment (a matter in which it is common to think all persons have an interest) and that the obvious purpose of the particular provision in question is to encourage enforcement by so-called ‘private attorney general’.”

These private attorney general provisions in environmental laws in the United States have enabled environmentalists to ensure a more equitable balance between development and preservation.  For example, environmentalists have been able to influence the United States federal government to protect the habitats of the northern spotted owl, the Mexican spotted owl and the grey wolf by limiting development on nearly 18 million acres of land.

In The Bahamas, the government is often compromised when regulating foreign direct investment, given the practice among the political parties of relying on secret campaign contributions from foreign investors who are proposing or conducting foreign direct investment, with environmental implications.  Therefore, the regulation of business should not be left exclusively to the initiative, monitoring and enforcement by the government.  I suggest that, like the United States, every Bahamian should be able to act as a “private attorney general” in the preservation and protection of our environmental laws.

Public access to beaches

Access to the beaches for recreation, exercise and leisure is important part of the Bahamian culture and traditional way of life, as island communities.  However, due to the lack of a rational development strategy, public access to the beaches on New Providence has been severely restricted over the past 30 years, due to the public policy of unrestricted touristic and other development, primarily by foreign investors.

Due to this pattern of development, we have seen, notwithstanding recent beach restoration projects, restriction to Governor’s Beach, Delaporte Beach, Cabbage Beach, Yamacraw Beach and Montagu Beach.

One social or economic class, foreign or local, should not be allowed to dominate the use of beaches in The Bahamas.  We must, in our public policy, strike an equitable balance between the accommodation of economic development and the right of all of our people to have reasonable access to the beach resources of our country.  Smart urban planning will protect the natural, historical and cultural patrimony of this country for future generations of Bahamians and visitors.

There is a growing recognition in the Caribbean region generally that the citizens’ right in a healthy and productive natural and social environment should be treated as a fundamental right.  The Constitutional Commission of Jamaica in its final report, dated February 1994, recommended that the Jamaican Constitution should be amended to include, amongst other things, “the right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment free from the threat of injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage”.

Similarly, the report of the Constitutional Review Commission of Barbados, dated December 1998, recommended that the Barbadian Constitution be amended to include, amongst other things, the duty and responsibility of every person in Barbados “to value and preserve the rich heritage of Barbadian culture” and to “create and maintain a clean and healthy environment and have compassion for living creatures”.

Further, the Barbadian Commission recommended that the Constitution be amended so that the state shall have the responsibility to “ensure that the beaches and public areas are accessible to all and do not become the exclusive preserve of any one sector of the community” and to “give the highest priority in the planning and execution of government policy to the preservation and protection of the natural environment of Barbados, which it shall hold as a sacred trust for future generations”.   The current laissez faire policy of The Bahamas with respect to the Bahamian environment is out of step with the growing regional consensus that we must, through the Constitution, statutes and common law, pronounce a rational policy for the preservation and protection of our natural environment and cultural and historical heritage.

Recommendations

Since our Constitution is the most authoritative statement of the Bahamian community’s aspirations, expectations and policies, I recommend that our Constitution be amended to include the following provisions:

1. Every person shall have the right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment free from the threat of injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological, cultural and historical heritage.

2. Every community should be adequately and meaningfully consulted in the decision-making process before the approval of any project that may adversely affect the quality of life and welfare of any Bahamian community.

3. The state shall ensure that the beaches and public areas are accessible to all and do not become the exclusive preserve of any one sector of the community.

4. The state shall give the highest priority in the planning and execution of government policy to the preservation and protection of the natural environment and cultural heritage of The Bahamas, which it shall hold as a sacred trust for future generations of Bahamians.

Finally, all future environmental legislations presented to the House of Assembly should contain a “private attorney general” provision which will enable any Bahamian citizen to challenge an environmental decision by a public authority to protect the good health of Bahamians and visitors and the ensure a clean environment.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Oct 11, 2012


thenassauguardian

Constitutional reform pt. 9: ... ...The current development strategy in The Bahamas, industrialization and modernization ...by inviting foreign direct investment by large multinational resorts and financial institutions, some of which employ thousands of Bahamian workers ...require a redefinition of trade unions in accordance with International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions 87 and 98 ...in order to achieve a better balance of power between capital and labor in The Bahamas

Constitutional reform Pt. 7: ... ...I, therefore, recommend that we amend our constitution to provide for the public funding of national elections ...with appropriate legislation to establish a system of public campaign financing ...to better secure the right to vote, reduce corruption of the political process and increase competition by independent candidates and small parties

Constitutional reform pt. 6: ... ...I recommend therefore that the recommendations of the disbanded Legal Aid Commission be reviewed ...and used as a guide for the establishment of a Public Defender’s Office and Legal Aid Facility, funded from public and private sources ...to balance the power and resources that the attorney general, the director of public prosecutions and commissioner of police bring to the prosecution on behalf of the state ...and to give the indigent defendant and litigant a fair opportunity to defend her or his life, liberty and property

Constitutional reform, pt. 5: ... ...In interpreting the Constitution of The Bahamas, the Court should give a generous interpretation to the constitutional provisions ...and avoid “the austerity of tabulated legalism”... ...In an open democratic society, the protection of human rights is not just the business of judges and lawyers... ...It is everyone’s business... ...As noted by Professor Lung-Chu-Chan, human rights can flourish, only when every member ...and every sector of the community is vigilant in defending and protecting them

Constitutional reform, pt. 4: ... ...I now offer some recommendations for consideration in the reform of Chapter 2 of the Bahamian Constitution

Constitutional reform, pt.3: ... ...The need for constitutional reform is most dramatically illustrated in the constitutional provisions dealing with citizenship

Constitutional reform, pt. 2: ... ...The preamble of the Bahamian constitution, I submit, has a number of weaknesses... ...First, there is no reference to the historical fact of 300 years of slavery of African people in The Bahamas ...or the genocide of the Lucayan/Arawak people by the European presence ...two critical aspects of the historical evolution of the Bahamian polity and society... ...Second, the preamble mischaracterizes the incorporation and colonization of The Bahamas into the triangular slave trade, initiated by and for the benefit of Europe, as: “...rediscovery of this family of islands, rocks and cays heralded the rebirth of the New World.”

Constitutional reform Pt. 1: ... ...After 39 years of constitutional practice in The Bahamas, it is now time that we examine our constitution ...to determine if it conforms to the demands and expectations of contemporary Bahamian society... ...Does the Bahamian constitution reflect the contemporary shared expectations and experiences of the Bahamian community today?

Constitutional reform Pt. 7: ... ...I, therefore, recommend that we amend our constitution to provide for the public funding of national elections ...with appropriate legislation to establish a system of public campaign financing ...to better secure the right to vote, reduce corruption of the political process and increase competition by independent candidates and small parties

Constitutional reform Pt. 7

By ALFRED SEARS

In June 1998 in an address at the Colloquium on Political Reform, Constitutional Change and National Development at The College of The Bahamas, the Rt. Honorable Sir Lynden Pindling — after 25 years as head of government and 19 years as prime minister of an independent Commonwealth of The Bahamas — advocated that the fundamental rights provisions of the Bill of Rights of the Bahamian Constitution should be expanded in the following terms:

“Experience has taught me that the list of fundamental rights and freedoms set out in Chapter 3 of the existing constitution should be expanded to include matters such as:-

(1) The right of a citizen to vote and the right to the equal exercise of political choice.

(2) The right of a citizen to a passport.

(3) The right of a citizen to secondary education.

(4) The right of a citizen to good health and a clean environment.

(5) The right of a citizen to seek and obtain public information.

(6) The right of a citizen to equal access to opportunity.

(7) The right of a citizen to be free from fear and from victimization

(8) The right of a citizen to fair competition.

“All the laws of The Bahamas, both old and new, should then be required to pass the litmus test of the revised constitution and any Bahamian citizen who wishes to institute proceedings to defend or enforce any of the rights and freedoms should be able to do so without having to obtain the prior consent of the attorney general.”

Right to vote

Many Bahamians trace the birth of the modern Bahamas to the grant of universal adult suffrage in 1960, when women were given the right to vote and right to sit in the legislature.

The exercise of the right of every adult citizen to vote in an election of members of the House of Assembly and the right to be qualified for membership therein led to majority rule in 1967 and widened the participation of Bahamians, of all class and racial background, in the governance of The Bahamas. It is this participation in the selection of the government, more than any other right, which guarantees Bahamians a democratic government.

General elections are the source of the democratic origins of governments in The Bahamas, as an expression of the general will of the Bahamian citizens, yet the right to vote is not presently entrenched in the constitution. Although it is implicitly recognized in the constitutional provisions governing the functions of the House of Assembly and the Constituencies Commission. Under our constitution the right to vote is not included in the bill of rights as a fundamental right.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1992 is the principal basis upon which the right to vote is established.  Under Section 8 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, a person is entitled to be registered as a voter for a constituency if, on the day of registration:

+(a) he is a citizen of The Bahamas of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity; and

(b) he is, and has been during the whole of the period of three months immediately preceding that day, ordinarily resident in premises in that constituency.”

Section 9 provides that every person who is “registered as a voter in any polling division in any constituency shall be entitled to vote at that polling division at an election in that constituency, provided that on the day of election, the person is a citizen of The Bahamas of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and, the case of a person who is registered as a voter in a polling division in that constituency, he is, or has been at some time during the period of one year immediately preceding that day, ordinarily resident in premises in that constituency”. Legal incapacity is defined in the act as a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of law, under a sentence of death, or one who is deemed to be a lunatic or of unsound mind.

While the right to vote is not entrenched in the constitution, Bahamian voters perceive the right to vote as a fundamental right, reflected in consistent massive voter turnout since independence. For example, the voter turnout for the May 7, 2012 General Election was 155,948 or 90.6 percent of the total registered voters of 172,128, and in the March 14, 1997 General Election 93 percent of the Bahamian electorate, or about 129,000 voters, voted. The political practice of the Bahamian people demonstrates that the right to vote is treated as a fundamental democratic right.

I recommend, therefore, that we amend our constitution to provide an entrenched constitutional right of every citizen to vote in an election of members of the House of Assembly and the right of every citizen to be qualified for membership therein as a fundamental right, subject to such exceptions and considerations as may be reasonable in a democratic society.

Secret political campaign contribution

In early 1966, the then opposition Progressive Liberal Party charged that the then governing United Bahamian Party was maintained in power by gerrymandered constituencies, strong conflict of interest in the operations of ministers and that some ministers were in the pay of shady casino operators active in Grand Bahama.

In that same year, the Wall Street Journal alleged that the premier and the speaker of the House had received “consultancy fees” from certain Grand Bahama casino operators who at the time were reputedly under the influence of Meyer Lansky of Miami Beach. The paper alleged that Sir Stafford Sands had received “consultancy fees” in excess of millions of dollars for using his political influence for legalizing casino gambling.

After the Progressive Liberal Party came to power in the general election of 1967, a Commission of Inquiry (“the Bacon Commission”) was appointed in April 1967 to investigate irregularities over the casino concessions.

The Bacon Commission confirmed the allegations that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal.  With respect to Sir Stafford Sands, the Commission reported that the legal fees paid to him for expediting the Freeport Casino licence was “even by Bahamian standards, out of proportion to the legal services he rendered … the enormity of the fee demanded and the speed and a manner with which payment was affected, coupled with every circumstance of his handling of this application leave … no doubt that he was selling his services primarily as an influential member of the Executive Council and not as a lawyer.”  The commission detailed a pattern of secret financial contributions by foreign investors to Bahamian political parties.

After the Bacon Commission was debated in the House of Assembly, a Progressive Liberal Party sponsored resolution was passed. It alleged that Sir Stafford Sands, a former United Bahamian Party minister, a senator and three members of the United Bahamian Party, including the former speaker, were “guilty of a crime against the people of The Bahamas”.

The issue of secret campaign contributions to our political directorate was again raised, 17 years later, in the Commission of Inquiry in to the Illegal Use of The Bahamas for the Transshipment of Dangerous Drugs, in 1984. The findings of the commission resulted in significant erosion in the brand and reputation of The Bahamas. If we were to have a Commission of Inquiry today to investigate the role of secret campaign contributions to our political parties would there be the same result as the Commissions of Inquiries of 1967 and 1984?

The Bahamas acceded to the United Nations Convention against Corruption on  January 10, 2008.  Pursuant to Chapter II, Article 7 (4) of this convention, The Bahamas accepted an international obligation to make good faith efforts to “enhance transparency in the funding of candidatures for elected public office and, when applicable, the funding of political parties”.

In light of this international obligation and the current political campaign practices, The Bahamas runs the risk of being listed again by multilateral agencies for lack of transparency in its political process, which will result in the further erosion of the global brand and reputation of The Bahamas.

In its May 21, 2012 report, the CARICOM Electoral Observer Mission of the General Election of May 7, 2012, recommended that “consideration should be given to implementing laws to govern campaign funding focusing on (a) source of funds; (b) use of funds; and (c) limits on expenditure.”

They proposed that “such legislation would (i) lessen the risk that those who contribute funds will control the elected representatives they finance; (ii) eliminate the risk that illicit money can corrupt the system and undermine the rule of law; (iii) improve the chances of persons without money or access to money but are interested in running for office; and (iv) reduce the risk of large sums of money in election campaign giving undue advantage to some candidates and constrain competition.”

Financial contributions provide political parties with the means to quickly travel the length and breadth of the archipelago and orchestrate large conventions, rallies and distribute expensive posters, handbills, shirts and purchase ads in the media, etc. This can project the appearance of momentum which will influence the voters. However, the long-term effect of secret campaign contributions will be voter cynicism arising out of a general impression that the political process is corrupt and/or favors foreign investors and other secret donors.

I, therefore, recommend that we amend our constitution to provide for the public funding of national elections, with appropriate legislation to establish a system of public campaign financing to better secure the right to vote, reduce corruption of the political process and increase competition by independent candidates and small parties.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Oct 04, 2012

thenassauguardian

Constitutional reform pt. 6: ... ...I recommend therefore that the recommendations of the disbanded Legal Aid Commission be reviewed ...and used as a guide for the establishment of a Public Defender’s Office and Legal Aid Facility, funded from public and private sources ...to balance the power and resources that the attorney general, the director of public prosecutions and commissioner of police bring to the prosecution on behalf of the state ...and to give the indigent defendant and litigant a fair opportunity to defend her or his life, liberty and property

Constitutional reform pt. 6

By Alfred Sears

In a democratic society the right of every person to be secure in the protection of the law is a basic safeguard of the liberty interest of each person.  When the liberty interest of a person is threatened by a serious criminal charge, the extent to which the accused can have a fair hearing within a reasonable time, in the face of the enormous resources of the state at the disposal of the prosecution, is the test of a democratic society.

The procedural protection for accused persons under the constitution reflects the extent to which the constitution places the state under the rule of law in balancing the interest of the individual and society.

Article 20 of the constitution provides procedural justice, through the guarantees, for example, of the presumption of innocence, public trials, right to trial by jury, the right to counsel and the right to not incriminate oneself.  These rights, based on the principle of fundamental justice, are not exhaustive because the concept of natural justice, like the constitution, is an evolving concept.  This proposition was supported by Lord Diplock, writing for the Privy Council in the case Haw v. Public Prosecutor (1981) 3 All ER 14 at 21-22, who observed that: “Their lordships recognize, too, that what may properly be regarded by lawyers as rules of natural justice change with the times.  The procedure for the trial of criminal offenses in England at various periods between the abolition of the Court of Star Chamber and High Commission in the seventeenth century and the passing of the Criminal Evidence Act in 1898 involved practices, particularly in relation to the trial of felonies, that nowadays would unhesitatingly be regarded as flouting fundamental rules of natural justice.”

Similarly, in The Bahamas our concept of fairness must be informed by the evolving standard of decency and fundamental justice under international human rights law.  The procedural justice standard to secure the protection of the law for persons in The Bahamas is outlined in Article 20 of the constitution which provides:

1) If any person is charged with a criminal offense, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.

2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offense:

a) shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty;

b) shall be informed as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands and in detail, of the nature of the offense charged;

c) shall be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defense;

d) shall be permitted to defend himself before the court in person or, at his own expense, by a legal representative of his own choice or by a legal representative at the public expense where so provided by or under a law in force in The Bahamas;

e) shall be afforded facilities to examine in person or by his legal representative the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution;

f) shall be permitted to have without payment the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the trial of the charge; and

g) shall, when charged on information in the Supreme Court, have the right to trial by jury; and except with his own consent the trial shall not take place in his absence unless he so conducts himself in the court as to render the continuance of the proceedings in his presence impracticable and the court has ordered him to be removed and the trial to proceed in his absence.

3) When a person is tried for any criminal offense, the accused person or any person authorized by him in that behalf shall, if he so requires and subject to payment of such reasonable fee as may be prescribed by law, be given within a reasonable time after judgment a copy of for the use of the accused person of any record of the proceedings made by or on behalf of the court.

4) No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offense on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offense, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offense that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that might have been imposed for that offense at the time when it was committed.

5) No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offense and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offense or for any other criminal offense of which he could have been convicted at the trial for that offense, save upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.

6) No person shall be tried for a criminal offense if he shows that he has been pardoned for that offense.

7) No person who is tried for a criminal offense shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial.

8) Any court or other adjudicating authority prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other adjudicating authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

9) All proceedings instituted in any court for determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation, including the announcement of the decision of the court, shall be held in public…”

However, the effectiveness of these constitutional guarantees, such as the presumption of innocence, can be challenged when a person is charged with sensational charges or when the interests of powerful persons and countries are involved.  The issue of the secure protection of the law and state action was raised in the case of Samuel Knowles.  Knowles was the subject of extradition requests by the United States, after having been designated by the president of the United States as a drug “kingpin” under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act 1999.  Knowles applied for habeas corpus, based on subsection 7 (1) (c) of the Extradition Act (Ch. 96 of the 2000 Edition of the Statute Laws of The Bahamas).  The hearing was assigned to Justice Lyons who, at a case management meeting with both counsel present, fixed the matter to be heard on September 28, 2006.  On August 28, 2006 Knowles was extradited to the United States.  The Bahamian Court of Appeal, in Knowles v. The Government of the United States of America and another (2008) 5 BHS J No. 67, made the following, obiter dicta, observations: “We cannot leave this judgment without recording this court’s serious concern about the manner and timing of the order for the removal of the appellant from The Bahamas at a time when the executive well knew that Lyons J had fixed a date a little over a month away to hear the appellant’s application.  Further, the executive must be taken to know the law and to have understood that by then the statute conferred a right on both sides to appeal to this court from the grant or refusal of habeas corpus on the kingpin ground and that both sides would have had a further right to appeal to the Privy Council from this court’s decision.  In those circumstances, to have ordered the surrender of the appellant 10 days after the learned judge had fixed a date for hearing the application, is clearly an egregious breach of the statute and is without precedent in this country.”

 

Representation

Effective and equal access to justice is another issue, under Article 20 (2)(d) of the constitution, which needs examination.  This provision guarantees the right to legal representation for accused persons either at expense of the accused or at the public expense.  This provision was intended by the framers of our constitution to provide the secure protection of the law for both affluent and poor persons in The Bahamas.

For most people who appear before our courts in The Bahamas the right to counsel is merely a theoretical right, as most poor people cannot afford legal representation.  One consequence of our failure to provide a properly funded system of legal aid is that the justice or magistrate often has to intervene during the conduct of a trial to assist the unrepresented person with court procedure; thus, delaying the administration of justice and causing significant backlogs in the system.  Further, in criminal matters the registrar is forced to seek out attorneys from the private bar to accept Crown briefs, often at short notice; rather than dealing with the administration of the court and other judicial duties.

The Bahamas has no comprehensive national system of legal aid for indigent persons in both civil and criminal matters before our courts even though we boast one of the highest per capita incomes in this region.  Section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act provides:

In any case in which it appears to the Supreme Court that an accused person committed for trial has no money wherewith to retain Counsel –

(a) if the accused is charged with an offense for which the punishment is death, the court shall assign counsel for the defense at public expense; and

(b) in any other case, the court, in its discretion, may assign a counsel for the defense at the public expense.

In practice, the registrar of the Supreme Court, operating with the limited resources allocated to the judiciary, tries to find lawyers willing to accept a Crown brief to

represent indigent persons primarily charged with murder.  Seldom would the more experienced lawyers from the criminal defense bar accept these Crown briefs; thus, mostly less seasoned criminal defense lawyers often handle such cases.

In other Caribbean countries, such as Jamaica, for example, the more seasoned lawyers, including Queen’s Counsels, from the criminal defense bar eagerly accept Crown briefs and legal aid cases as a part of their professional duty and for the professional challenge.  Because of the limited budget, the registrar cannot offer a Crown brief in most non-capital cases.  Therefore, many poor accused persons who face indictable charges in the Supreme Court are not provided with legal representation, at the public expense, as contemplated by Article 20(2)(d) of the constitution because The Bahamas has not made any legal provision for a public defense and legal aid system.

This state of affairs raises a serious constitutional concern whether unrepresented poor persons facing serious criminal charges receive the constitutional guarantee of due process and the secure protection of the law.

Discrimination against poor people in legal procedures was addressed by Justice Douglas, writing for the majority of the United States Supreme Court, in the case Griffin v. Illinois 351 U.S. 12 (1956): “Due process and equal protection both call for procedures in criminal trials which allow no invidious discriminations.  In criminal trials, the state can no more discriminate on account of poverty than on account of religion, race, color... .  To deny adequate review to the poor means that many of them may lose their life, liberty and property because of unjust convictions which appellate courts could set aside.  There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has... ”.

Similarly, the United States Supreme Court in the case Douglas v. California 372 U.S. 353 (1963), per Justice Douglas rejected California’s requirement that an indigent defendant had to first show merit in order to qualify for legal aid.  Justice Douglas reasoned that: “The discrimination is not between possible good and obviously bad cases, but between cases where the rich man can require the court to listen to argument of counsel before deciding on the merits, but the poor man cannot.  There is lacking that equality demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment where the rich man, who appeals as of right, enjoys the benefit of counsel’s examination into the record, research of the law and marshalling of arguments on his behalf, while the indigent, already burdened by a preliminary determination that his case is without merit, is forced to shift for himself.  The indigent where the record is unclear or errors are hidden, has only the right to a meaningless ritual, while the rich man has a meaningful appeal.”

 

What to do

We must ask ourselves in The Bahamas whether, in the absence of a national system of legal aid, indigent defendants facing serious criminal charges must shift for themselves and engage in a meaningless ritual compared to more affluent defendants who can afford to retain effective legal representation.

I maintain that our collective failure to provide a properly funded system of legal aid for indigent defendants and poor persons in criminal and civil matters challenges the constitutional guarantee of procedural justice and fairness.

An effort was made to remedy this situation in 2004 when Prime Minister Perry Christie appointed the Legal Aid Commission, under the chairmanship of Bishop Dr. William Thompson, to enquire into the adequacy of the system of legal aid and advice in The Bahamas and to make proposals for the way forward to improve access to justice.  However, after the general elections of 2007, the government disbanded the commission.

I recommend therefore that the recommendations of the disbanded Legal Aid Commission be reviewed and used as a guide for the establishment of a Public Defender’s Office and Legal Aid Facility, funded from public and private sources, to balance the power and resources that the attorney general, the director of public prosecutions and commissioner of police bring to the prosecution on behalf of the state and to give the indigent defendant and litigant a fair opportunity to defend her or his life, liberty and property.

 

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Sep 27, 2012

thenassauguardian