Chief Justice Designate Marston Gibson
Today’s Nation newspaper headline cries, CJ Hitch!
It was back in August BU broke the story – Barbados Government Selects Next Chief Justice From Outside The Inner Ring – of Marston Gibson’s selection as Chief Justice (CJ) Designate. His appointment was heralded then by Barbados Underground (BU) and we continue to support Gibson’s selection moreso in light of today’s Nation report. It is an open secret, endorsed by many who practice law and interact closely with the Judiciary, it is in urgent need of leadership from the top. A hindrance to accomplishing much needed efficiency within the bowels of our judicature has been the inability of recent CJs to make waste of the boys club of lawyers which has throttled the efficiency and effectiveness of Barbados’ Court System.
The Nation article exposes the move by ‘some’ who have hijacked our Judiciary and now feel threatened by the coming of the 13th Chief Justice from outside the inner ring. We ask Barbadians to support Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart who is unfamiliar in the role of kicking butt, one which the late Prime Minister David Thompson performed with some competency as evidenced by his selection of CJ Designate Gibson. It is instructive when former President of the Barbados Bar Association (BBA) Wilfred Abrahams was asked by the local media to comment on Gibson’s selection he was conditional in his congratulations. He took the opportunity to inform the public that in his opinion suitable home grown candidates were available. On another occasion while on a radio talk show he was heard questioning the non extension of David Simmons’ term. Perhaps all has been explained with the selection of Wilfred Abrahams to represent the Barbados Labour Party in Christ Church East in the coming general election.
In any event, if there is a ‘snagg’ as the Nation report suggests, an amendment of the Act requiring a simple majority can be passed on an urgent basis by the Lower House. BU’s best research confirms such an amendment does not* require a change in the constitution which would necessitate a two thirds majority count. Given the intent by late Prime Minister David Thompson by selecting Gibson’s from outside the boys club, no doubt Prime Minister Stuart in his former role as AG would have been consulted, Barbadians would not question any precedent set if there is a need to go to parliament to remove any ‘snagg’ if there is one.
Here is an opportunity for Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart to demonstrate he will unburden himself from the past and walk a new path regarding how we want our Judiciary to function. The legacy of former Prime Minister Owen Arthur will continue to be troubled by the appointment of former CJ David Simmons. Note that BU is not questioning the reputation of David Simmons. The point has been made that the Judiciary in our system of governance requires it to operate under a separation of powers doctrine. The insensitive and ugly appointment of David Simmons to CJ having not served a ‘rest’ period after vacating the role of Attorney General has set a dangerous precedent which Barbadians must respond to with a collective shout of ‘never again’ in this country. Given Arthur’s recent return as Leader of the Opposition he should be made to promise Barbadians that he will not inject the spectre of politics in future appointments to the bench should he regain the office of Prime Minister.
The importance which the Judiciary has played in Barbados earning the good reputation as a stable jurisdiction cannot be underscored enough but recognizing that we have been struggling to meet the standard of previous years. The need to erase the suggestion of political encroachment by the executive arm behoves Prime Minister Stuart to act hastily to pre-empt possible public uncertainty which may brew as a result of confusion surrounding Marston Gibson’s appointment.
Against the foregoing BU has it on good authority that the Prime Minister has done his round robin of the senior legal beavers, as his studied approach compels him to do, and he will be making an announcement on the matter shortly. In fact the announcement may come as early as tomorrow. In the announcement he is expected to confirm the appointment of CJ Designate Marston Gibson.
As suggested in today’s Sunday Sun, there is a hitch surrounding the appointment. I am in favour of a person from outside the “inner circle” getting that posting. However, if there is some legal reason, or if it will be going against what is required, then I think it will be setting a bad precedent, then it means any party would be able to do as they like while in government. We must be very careful in mixing the judicary and politics as it leads to the breakdown of law and order and that is dangerous.
If the appointment is contrary to law shouldn’t it be pointed out? Isn’t the application of the law paramount? The good news is that the Gov’t has been made aware of the “oversight” and can remedy the situation by amending the law.
The nature of Barbadian politics is such as that sinister motives are applied to any and every issue. I think that whoever brought up this issue did the Gov’t a favour, imagine having to pass legislation after the fact to rectify a situation like this or worse having a newly appointed CJ vacate the position.
Well if support is to be given would meaning changing the act to include the US as approved locations that should be too hard to do. would just need to have it in the order paper before parliament closes for Christmas.
@David. Excellent report. Also, there is no snag as the Nation suggests, merely an ugly and last-ditch attemt to derail the appointment of Chief Justice Gibson and to thereby deny Bajans a court system of which they can be proud and that actually delivers justice, instead of the moribund and downright dead system left by one D. Simmons with the earnest support and connivance of his politicl master, one O. Arthur.
The Nation report is crass and transparent and once again shows the unrelenting efforts by those formerly a part of the Executive to interfere with the Judiciary. There is no need to amend the Act. The appointment of Chief Justice Gibson can stand without that. Any lawyer worth his salt knows that. This latest is merely an attempt to diddle the public into thinking that something is wrong with the appointment and to score political brownie points.
Most revealing of all, however, is the degree of desperation that must have initiated this pathetic subterfuge. Desperation because once Chief Justice Gibson is installed, there is the distinct possibility that heads will roll at the Registry, for so long the private preserve of Marie McCormack aka Lady Simmons, and subsequently by her understudies. Then too, certain judges may well feel that their jobs are not that secure any longer and that they may actually have to do some work to earn the $100,000+ per year, plus perquisites, from out of the public purse.
That a newspaper would demean itself to print the sort of twaddle is of itself cautionary. As it holds itself up as a responsible organ of the press and pokes carping critism at social commentators, I would be interested to know just what legal advice the Nation took before rushing to print its politically biased report – AND FROM WHOM!!! A range of speculative names spring immediately to mind, but maybe the Nation would oblige us by naming these.
I suppose the final ploy will be to try to persuade us all that Chief Justice Gibson was NOT born in Barbados and was NOT schooled in Barbados and is NOT a son of Bajan soil.
@The Scout
Did you express a similar reservation when David Simmons move from AG to CJ?
@Sergeant
BU agrees with your comment to a point. Many pushing against the appointment of Gibson are fighting to protect the status quo.
We need to stop endorsing law breaking. If the man does not meet the criteria as laid out in the law, he should not be appointed; and if the Government means he must be the one then amend the legislation. Once again this debacle shows that the current government either does not understand governance or never bothers to do proper research.
What really is separation of powers? If it is the appointment of a person with no ties to a political party, then isn’t the CJ designate ineligible. Again we are trying to transplant wholesale ideas of what ‘separation of powers’ means within the context of big countries to a 2×2 island with 22 people.
David
I will take the Nation’s article at face value with regards for the qualifications required to serve as CJ. I know that perhaps there was some “red meat” thrown to partisans of the other side with the mention of mansion in an upscale area which was completely unnecessary.
I am not a lawyer but Amused who seems to have more than a passing acquaintance with the legal profession has made his point so perhaps other members of the Bar who contribute from time to time can also contribute.
How about it J Cumberbatch and Anonlegal?
There are times in the lives of “men” when they must put their stamp on events; to publicly demonstrate who they are. The time has come sooner than expected, for the Prime Minister of Barbados Fruendel Stuart, to take the bow of ship Barbados into the eye of the storm, and decide where he will take ship Barbados.
Is there to be a new dawn, or will we find ourselves be-calmed wallowing in the stagnant shallows?
The performance, doctrine and decisions of legal luminaries are typically matters of record, so it probably does not matter a great deal that Mr Gibson has not practiced law in Barbados or in the Commonwealth. As long as he’s not some kind of extremist nut, and as long as he’s an experienced jurist, he is probably up to the job. At least he’s not one of Thompson’s ubiquitous and nepotistic Combermerians…
Amused
Could you explain why there no need to change the act ?
@Enuff, Scout et al. I am completely satisified that there is no legal or other impement to the appointment of Chief Justice Gibson. I don’t even think of him as Chief Justice Designate any longer, but as The Chief. I would urge the Prime Minister to show his teeth as early as possible and make a public statement confirming the appointment of Chief Justice Gibson. End this nonsense right away.
What amazes me is that BU led the story of Chief Justice Gibson’s appointment and was slavishly followed by the Nation and VOB. Do you seriously mean to tell me that no one has noticed that BU broke the story on August 14 this year AND IT HAS TAKEN ALMOST 4 MONTHS FOR THE POLITICAL MASTERS OF THE NATION TO COBBLE THEIR LATEST GARBAGE TOGETHER???!!! Believe me, if there had been a scinthilla of doubt about the appointment in the minds of the Nation’s political masters, we would have heard from them long since. As The Chief takes up his office 1st January 2011, the timing of this latest attempt at derailing is transparent and laughable and could only be cobbled together by a group of individuals who were instrumental in and supportive of the appointment of one D. Simmons (Sir).
I am looking forward with keen expectation to the PM telling this bunch of imbeciles exactly what part of his anatomy they can kiss.
I even more vexed now!
@Anthony – ask Jeff. He is better at putting things in layman terms. Also, it is time for me to calm down and stopped being so vexed. The family complaining bad. If I don’t want a divorce, I better stop. Also, read The Chief’s CV – BU published it. I will say, before I get cut off, that NUFF noses out of joint because of The Chief’s appointment and at that I am VERY amused. Uh like it BAD!!!!!
BU didn’t publish his cv it brief bio at best. Don’t really matter if the answer is complicated i will go research it myself . Just don’t see how it can be done without changing the legislation currently.
Why am I not surprised at this attempt to stop this “outsider” from becoming the CJ of Bim?
He is not “one a de boys” an he might pitch wid a big taw an like we nice glassies outta de ling.
PM Stuart has a glorious opportunity and he must appoint Marston Gibson.
If Legislation needs to be changed Just do it. It will send a message that will resonate outside of Barbados.
Maybe the people of Barbados will get a Justice system to be proud of.
@Amused, don’t forget “families first”.
Yuh betta left de blog,keep de wife happy an come back when she gone sleep or I might have to reccomen a good divorce lawyer to save yuh.lol
Parliament is the highest law making* body in the land. If, emphasis on if we need to amend the law to appoint a Bajan from outside the inner ring, it should be done without a second thought. In recent months we have heard Justice Kentish lament how our court processing has slowed, Leslie Haynes BBA president, Pilgrim aka Pilly and the list goes on of others agreeing yet we have some who would cry, don’t mess with the Judiciary.
Justice DELAYED is Justice DENIED!
I am watching you people carefully especially those who are very bias and I am asking you to recognize that there are views other than your view. The crass bias of some commenters is deplorable.
I want what is best for Barbados, I dont care who is in power, After all the foolish -biased talk by some commenters. lets hope for the sake of this country that this DLP Government get it right, however I am not being convinced, I am not being impressed (apologies to Lil Rick) but I want Barbados to do well and if the DLP can do it -kudos to them. I WOULD BE HAPPY !
Amused
Do you seriously mean to tell me that no one has noticed that BU broke the story on August 14 this year AND IT HAS TAKEN ALMOST 4 MONTHS FOR THE POLITICAL MASTERS OF THE NATION TO COBBLE THEIR LATEST GARBAGE TOGETHER
********************
On the contrary I think you should give these folks credit for being smart to bring this issue up at a time when it would cause some disquiet among the Gov’t (DLP). Do you think that anyone opposed to the appointment would not have researched the requirements for the post in all that time? If it was brought to the fore in August the Gov’t would have amended the law and we would have forgotten about it. Now it is in the open there is not enough time to amend the law prior to the year end and the swearing will have to wait.
In the long run I think that he will be appointed but it will be a bit of egg on the DLP faces and another example of Gov’t ineptness.
Its all politics
@Hants. Uh escape detection for a moment. But it din just be spousal, yuh know, but de entire family – including de dogs. Dem de gang up pon muh. Yuh right in all you say. You got to pity poor Sargeant. Mekin excuse to cover a political gaffe. Poor fellow.
But seriously, that is the problem. Politicizing at the expense of people’s rights to an effective judical system. We are paying for it and we have the right to it. And David is right – justice delayed is justice denied. I am perfectly content that no laws need to be amended for The Chief to take office. All I want is for the PM to make his announcement that let the yapping little political dogs get on with what they are determined to do – bite at people’s ankles and get kicked by an electorate that is FAR more savvy than politicians give us credit for.
You mean to tell me that if the US attorney-general (a Bajan) was appointed to the bench in Barbados, some idiot would raise the objection that he was unqualified? It is also, as you pointed out, Hants, a matter of international perception and credibility. And since we rely HEAVILY on foreign investment, doesn’t it make sense to give comfort to those investors that we have a working judicial system, instead of the dead and done so-called judicial system we have now? Only people that (to quote David) are shitting pink are concerned. For the rest of us, I think we look forward to installation of The Chief and the Lazarus-like resurrection of a dead and buried judicial system. Please believe me, I am not exaggerating.
As for Kentish and her inane remarks, pray ask her if she is being or has recently been sued and what she is/was being sued for. And if she isn’t prepared to deliver the details, never mind – I am just vexed enough to produce them for her. Remember, this is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD!!! And in the interest of the public I am prepared to put her comments into the correct light.
Got to go now and not be vexed, otherwise I might not survive.
@Amused
Not you got Hants in trouble with that one! Now pray tell what meek and mild Justice Kentish has done now.
@David. Let me check first so I don’t make any statements that might be a breach of privilege or defamatory. I need to see what has been filed first and is in the public domain. Maybe I will have better luck with this file than a certain divorce file involving a certain big-up politician that the Registry has “misplaced”.
I can never fully understand why Barbadians have difficulty in acceptance.Accept the fact that a new chief Justice will be in town and therefore haul and pull up!Ammend the law or append the law,whatever it takes to ensure that Mr.Gibson is given the opportunity to serve Bim well! So what is new? The DLP is in power,Frundel Stuart is Prime Minister,David Thompson es muerto, Owen Seymore is still rambling ROSE… and the devil in hell where he belongs.
It is time that we speak what is on our minds but mind what we speak.Corruption was, is and evermore shall be.It is up to each one to choose which way to go. Sometime decisions are made to save a life by man made vows which break themselves in swearing.
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip.Madam Justice Kentish is not the almighty.To err is human and she is human.One thing is for sure all the files in the world which we have on anyone…..can be a waste of time. Why? Ya ever hear ya gotta have a Godfather?
Files have been known to have gone missing-people too.Like a source said when ya dead ya doan know and when ya know ya done dead. Such is life in the tropics! Never a dull moment!!!
Ha ha…so the proverbial is just about starting to hit the fan…had to happen. lol….and it’ll only degenerate from here….give it two years and it’ll be much fun along the way…gonna be sport, starting now…haha…system..what system??? Like a baloon that just get leggo…haha
I read in today’s SUN that “the appointment of a new Chief Justice for Barbados has run into a legal snag”, and that “on the eve of Chief Justice designate Marston Gibson taking up the job, SUNDAY SUN investigations have revealed that a challenge has been made to the pending appointment, since it does not appear he meets all of the legal criteria to qualify for the top judicial post.”
I read too that according to “ Section 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, anyone who wants to become Chief Justice or a Court of Appeal judge in Barbados must have been practising for no fewer than 15 years in a Commonwealth jurisdiction, or serving during the prescribed period as a parliamentary counsel or as a professor or teacher of law at the University of the West Indies, or at a school for legal education approved by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.”
Now clearly according to this law, Gibson, a Rhodes Scholar with law degrees from the University of the West Indies (UWI) and Oxford University in England who has been residing in New York for the past 20 years and has been practising and teaching law there, is ineligible to be appointed the new Chief Justice for Barbados.
Correct me if I am wrong here, please.
I read also that “the late Prime Minister David Thompson had held talks with Gibson and approved his appointment as Barbados’ next Chief Justice,” and that “under the Constitution, the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, appoints the Chief Justice.
Correct me if I am wrong, please. Was not the late Prime Minister David Thompson a lawyer? Is not Miss Mottley, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, also a lawyer? Do not our political leaders know the laws under which we are supposed to operate as a nation? Why did not these legal luminaries and political leaders make their choice according to the law? I only asking OK? Educate me here.
How is it that folk here on BU are calling for the law to be changed to accommodate the appointment of this man? Is this setting a good precedent? I only asking OK? Educate me here.
The Sun article noted that “The latest development has reportedly reopened the door for the top judicial post, with legal sources suggesting that Justice of Appeal Andrew Burgess was the front-runner. Also mentioned as a likely choice were Acting Chief Justice Sherman Moore and Justices of Appeal Sandra Mason and Peter Williams.”
May I respectfully ask what is wrong with the Acting Chief Justice Sherman Moore continuing as Chief Justice until he reaches retirement age? Was he not appointed as acting Chief Justice by the same DLP administration, presumably according to the relevant law? I only asking OK? Educate me here. Do these fellows know what they are doing? Do they think before they act?
What is wrong with appointing one from the list of Justices of Appeal Andrew Burgess, Sandra Mason or Peter Williams? Have they all practiced according to the provisions of the relevant law? I only asking OK? Educate me here. I willing to learn.
I don’t know Mr Gibson and so it does not matter to me if he is appointed or not. I only asking questions OK?
I notice that there is a need for a new Chief Medical Officer. Do you suppose that you guys can get them to change the provisions so that I could get a little pick in this post? I only asking OK? Educate me here. After all, what is fair for the goose is good for the gander.
Hants you know any body in your party that you can talk to on my behalf in this matter? Murdah. You think that the fellas could tweak or twink the law to accomodate me? (In NZ white out is marketted as Twink. Lol). I am sure that if BU was to run an article calling for me as CMO, that FREUNDEL would listen up!
Chief Justice designate !
Are you not a supporter of the DLP ?
There is
No Chief Justice -for too long now
No deputy Prime Minister
No Candidate for St.John
Nothing coming from Fumbly Stew
No Cabinet reshufle
I have heard about Yes men
But Fumbly Stew is a No man
No Talk ! No Action
Somebody please take a pulse: Somebody please stick a pin up Somebody’s ass quick
@Dr.GP,
You gettin lazy or wuh? You lookin to retire early?
That job won’t challenge a brainiac like you.
You could probably get a little 6 figure berry as a consultant to the Minister and the CMO.
As for the CJ, It will not matter to Gibson because he is a maguffee in the States just like you an wunna fellas wid nuff qualifications don’t have to worry bout a job.
The comedy of errors continues and the series of pathetic excuses continues as well.
The law on the appointment of Chief Justice is clear. Apparently this bunch of jokers didn’t read the law before picking a very qualified Bajan to do the job.
Now having placed themselves in an untenable position they now seek to blame it on “People resisting the appointment of an outsider”.
Has he or has he not 15 years of experience in a Commonwealth jurisdiction?
How can this fact be blamed on people “resisting the appointment of an outsider”?
David the argument is unworthy of you.
What credibility will this man have in upholding the law if they have to break it to appoint him?
But then I suppose they will want to blame that on “people resisting” as well.
No where in this will you see either Stuart or anyone else in the DLP take responsibility for their own screw up. They will blame “people entrenched in the status quo”, they will blame “BLP 5th columnists”, they will attack the lawyers for not cooperating.
They selected a candidate that is not legally eligible. And now that they have embarrassed us all they will try to blame someone else.
Pathetic!
@My Name Is Not Sylvan
Let us accept two of your points.
The government might have gotten it wrong, woe to them.
The other point that Gibson is qualified for the job. If he is why can’t the government amend the Act to pursue a qualified candidate if there is a loose end?
The US recently changed their law to press for the extradition of Julian Assange in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks business.
I hope he is able become CJ so as to stop the ‘birds of a feather” families we have here in Barbados but if it is that he does not fit the total criteria and the DLP insist on an expatriate then i am sure they can find someone else who probably resides in UK or Canada or some island here in the c’bean that had practiced c’bean for 15 years at least. it is time we get rid of the likes of MMcormack, and the familiarity content.
on a similar note, why is it that if you have very good grades and want to switch or do a degree in law at the UWI, you are declined but someone else of poor ‘barely made it’ grades are given the green light because their grand parent , mother, dad, aunt or uncle are in the legal fraternity in Barbados? people will want to deny it but it happens every year at Cave Hill. don’t even try to explain why a backward jackass could be accepted to study law and a straight ‘A’ student could be deny – we all know. it is things such as this that should make us want someone other than a resident in Barbados to be CJ. i know of a woman in a govt dept who have the full qualifications to study law and applied twice, each time she was turn down. on the second occasion a lawyer that was her friend that had no connection with the UWI was able to tell her that her, before she received a letter from the UWI, that she was not accepted. we are too small an island it seems to have honestly reigning. don’t get me wrong some young people do get thru but the majority of the bright who want to practice and have no family connection are not even considered. i know of one young lady, while waiting for her CAPE results knew before they returned that she was accepted to study law at UWI, cave hill, infact she had boasted that she will get in based on her name and she did, her friend who scored much better results did not.
@Georgie Porgie | December 13, 2010 at 12:00 AM |
why don’t you apply for the post? you are doctor, practising for over 7 years, apply. i would love to see different blood in that post but really the post should go to Dr Elizabeth Ferdinand who was acting in if for a while until she was purposely overlooked for Dr. St. John who’s dad was Bruce St. John who. i am not old enough to know who he was but i don’t know if he at the time belonged to the BLP, however, Ferdindand was the one deserving the post or Dr. McCollin but neither got it
If what is reported in yesterday’s Sunday Sun is correct and Mr. Gibson does not decline this ‘nomination’ immediately we should all be afraid – very afraid! Gladstone Holder must be turning in his grave.
We should also be wary of those who would hold up the US as paragons of virtue when it comes to upholding the Law – any Law!
David,
If I had argued the position that you have just taken with the BLP instead of the DLP, you would have been the first to jump on me.
Surely you of all people don’t want to debate the issues with the Government retroactively changing laws to justify their actions? I know the DLP has done this before in 1990 with regard to central bank limits on Government debt and look at where that ended up in 1991.
No my broader point is, that this appointment is just symptomatic of a larger pattern of bumbling and mismanagement by this administration. My futher point is that the Government must “man up” and take responsibility for it’s actions, not try to blame the BLP or “people invested in the status quo” or “unsophisticated voters” or “recalcitrant civil servants” or “the recession” or “David Thompson’s illness or death”. I could continue, the list of “fall guys” for this administration’s ineptitude is endless.
Georgie Porgie; I suspect that many people are not aware that the word “consultations” appears to have different meanings in general parlance and compared with when applied in a political context such as “the PM appoints someone after consultations with someone else”. In that context, the PM merely has to inform that “someone else” person before making the appointment. Nothing more, but usually significantly less.
The situation could have gone like this:
PM meets Opposition leader in corridor.
PM: Hey Opposition leader I’m thinking of appointing person X to a very important post. You remember him?
Opposition Leader; Yes. He’s really brilliant, one of the best legal minds I’ve ever met. But he was working outside the commonwealth for over 20 years. You certain he would be eligible?
PM; Don’t worry about that.
No matter what the Opposition leader says after that the PM would have fulfilled his constitutional duties.
The above is just a completely made up scenario. But it appears that nearly all such consultations dating back to after independance, were made along the lines suggested.
But, David he is not “qualified” as you say. Qualifications for Chief Justice include both a law degree and a certain number of years experience. What makes Gibson more qualified than a person with the same amount of years experience as him?
@Anonus: “But, David he is not “qualified” as you say. Qualifications for Chief Justice include both a law degree and a certain number of years experience.
From what I have read (I know none of the players) Gibson has the many years of experience — and more. Hell, he’s teaching law in the “great” US of A. You don’t teach law in the litigious US of A unless you know how the interpret law (any law) very competently.
The sticky point (which some seem to be fixated on) is our local requirement for 15 years practising law in a “Commonwealth jurisdiction”.
Perhaps it’s time we seek excellence to work for us from outside of the “jurisdiction” of our colonial masters?
So that, perhaps, some things might change….
@David. Let me be very clear. There is NO impedement of ANY KIND to The Chief not taking up his post. What we are seeing here is a lot of people out of the Bat Cave of the BLP who are scared for their jobs and want to protect their heretofore safe, secure and utterly incompetent sinecures, shitting pink and trying to blow smoke up Bajans’ fundamental orifices.
I am sorry I am so busy at the moment, but if the government doesn’t do it for me, I am going to write in depth on exactly why there is no impedement to The Chief being installed – and at the same time I will see what I can do in respect of certain a certain law case brought against a D. Simmons appointee to the judiciary.
It burns my butt to see these pathetic attempts by people who wish to represent and govern us to deny us a sound and independent judicial system. I believe the word to describe them collectively is “anarchist”. Or is it “dictatorship”.
To borrow the phrase “Living in a bubble” from Dennis Johnson, let me say that this Sun article is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to force Bajans into a bubble for all eternity. Well, we far too ignorant to let them get away with it.
CH,
Maybe, although I am not sure that practicing under a different system of law give you sufficient experience to judge in another. Could a Barbadian lawyer then be eligible for a post on the US Supreme Court?
We are not “fixating” on anything. That is what the law says.
Amused,
After all your empty words against the BLP and against the article in the Sun, would you mind telling us in a few sentences why there is no impediment to Gibson taking up the post?
@Anonus…
If I remember correctly, a great man once said “The law was made for man, not man for the law…
@Anonus: “Maybe, although I am not sure that practicing under a different system of law give you sufficient experience to judge in another.
I disagree. Anyone smart enough should easily be able to operate within any similar framework within which they are tasked.
If I may use a software development analogy…
My experience is those very knowledgeable and talented in the computer language C have absolutely no problem becoming extremely productive in the Perl language within a day or so.
Similarly C++ and Java. Et al.
In fact, my experience has been those programmers moving between different languages bring unique insight to their work in the new environment….
@Amused….
@David. Let me be very clear. There is NO impedement of ANY KIND to The Chief not taking up his post. What we are seeing here is a lot of people out of the Bat Cave of the BLP who are scared for their jobs and want to protect their heretofore safe, secure and utterly incompetent sinecures, shitting pink and trying to blow smoke up Bajans’ fundamental orifices.
Yawn
Does the man fit the requirements outlined in the law or not?
If you wanted to go outside of what is prescribed surely the thing to do would have been to have amended the law first, and then appointed the man? It’s not the BLP’s fault that you put the cart before the horse.
Trying to blame your screw up on a “vast BLP conspiracy” , or people trying to protect sinecures, is pathetic.
The only person who is “shitting pink and trying to blow smoke up Bajans’ fundamental orifices.” is you.
All of the big words, and verbiage won’t hide that fact.
@ Hants
No man I not getting lazy nor am I lookin to retire early
I would find the job of CMO challenging man cause I’d be out in the villages wid my public health nurses seeking to change the status quo man—- but I doubt they would like my aggressive approach.
@All… For the record, I’m apolitical. I just want to see the “job” done correctly and expediently.
@My Name Is Not Sylvan: “If you wanted to go outside of what is prescribed surely the thing to do would have been to have amended the law first, and then appointed the man? It’s not the BLP’s fault that you put the cart before the horse.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here MNINS, but did not the previous government have a bit of a legal “hiccup” when they tried to activate the new Dodds Prison?
Something about legalize about “Her Majesty’s Prison”?
checkit-out | December 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM
I have no doubt that the scenario you cited is very likely what happened, and that there is much merit in your statement that “.nearly all such consultations dating back to after independance, were made along the lines suggested.”
This is very sad. We are supposed to be an educated people, and though we are quite as easy going populace, we deserve to have public officials doing the right things in such a way that the public can perceive that the right thing is being done. After all, these were the principles instilled in those of us of a certain age in our homes, at school and even in Sunday school. We know better.
As I said before I have nothing against the person designated for the post, and I can appreciate the hope and desire of all those who long for greater proficiency in our courts, but it seems to me that to change or amend our laws (especially if they are well drafted) to accommodate anyone however well academically qualified will set up a poor precedent.
It seems that the Chief Justice designate though academically qualified is not legally qualified according to the act that relates to such appointments.
smooth chocolate | December 13, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Thanks for your advice! I might just follow your suggestion and apply for the post of CMO. But I wont get it. I am not in the party in power (or other party). An I don’t have an MPH etc.
Dr Elizabeth Ferdinand has probably reached retirement age. Though I agree with you that she might have been overlooked in the past when Dr. St. John (who is a comparative junior by far) was appointed, I believe that Dr Ferdinand most likely declined. I don’t agree that Dr. McCollin is deserving of the post from what I know of her. She is definitely not leadership material, and I found her to be lazy……..but she has been an MOH for at least 15 years ( before Joy St John.)
Really what is required is some one with a more aggressive and proactive approach to the job. What is needed is some one who will get out of the Ministry and into the field and join with the Public Health nurses (some of whom have MPH’s) and motivate and empower them to engage in innovative ways to improve healthcare at the periphery.This approach has been lacking since the late Sir Maurice Byer and the late Dr KR Rao, who were my Public Health teachers and mentors.
smooth chocolate you have obviously told many truths in your post of December 13, 2010 at 9:14 AM except that you must know that MMcormack stepped down years ago when her husband stepped up to CJ!
I wonder why several posters seem to think that the designated CJ will change the status quo, and be the Savior!
SERPICO | December 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Re If what is reported in yesterday’s Sunday Sun is correct and Mr. Gibson does not decline this ‘nomination’ immediately we should all be afraid – very afraid! We should also be wary of those who would hold up the US as paragons of virtue when it comes to upholding the Law – any Law!
I have no hesitation in agreeing with you 100% How on earth can we, the people support the Government retroactively changing laws to justify their actions? Surely this is dangerous!
@ My Name Is Not Sylvan | December 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM |
“this appointment is just symptomatic of a larger pattern of bumbling and mismanagement by this administration. My futher point is that the Government must “man up” and take responsibility for it’s actions, not try to blame the BLP or “people invested in the status quo” or “unsophisticated voters” or “recalcitrant civil servants” or “the recession” or “David Thompson’s illness or death”. I could continue, the list of “fall guys” for this administration’s ineptitude is endless.”
The above is sound doctrine that can not be refuted /disputed
GP I would still like you to apply for CMO. I think you are BRILLIANT in your profession. Strong headed at times BUT I think that, this is what is needed to get things moving.
Why don’t ya? What party what ……… You never know until you try ……….
YOU don’t have a thing to loose. Personally, I would feel quite comfortable knowing that you had tried than not to have tried at all.
@Georgie Porgie: “As I said before I have nothing against the person designated for the post, and I can appreciate the hope and desire of all those who long for greater proficiency in our courts, but it seems to me that to change or amend our laws (especially if they are well drafted) to accommodate anyone however well academically qualified will set up a poor precedent.
@GP… With respect, what you have to understand is that no “living” languages remains the same over time.
If you haven’t yet read it, please see “The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of The Oxford English Dictionary”. It is a beautifully written, informative, and historically accurate document.
Since the (human) languages by which our laws are written are not unchanging, is it not logical to conclude that our laws should not remain unchanging either?
Perhaps, just perhaps – when this requirement was drafted – it was not envisaged that someone of the calibre of Marston Gibson would be Chief Justice of Barbados from the USA, and more to the point, he would be or could be a NATIVE SON OF BARBADOS.
@Chris. Well done.
@My Name Is Not Sylvan. Just part of, “when I am not so busy” do you NOT understand? Just what part of my statement that I will provide the LEGAL grounds refuting the Nation/Sun article do you NOT understand? You realise that now I am going to do it for spite AND I am going to give details on which member of the judiciary has been sued and for what!!! You want political embarrassment? I am going to oblige you.
Whether the judiciary likes it or not, the lawyers are fed up with it, the people are fed up with it and there WILL be change and no amount of suberfuge will derail that change. And if any political party or its judicial todies and support organisations try to stand in the way, we will trample you so far underground that you may never be able to dig yourselves out.
You mean to tell me that any member of the Barbados Bar can go to Canada, take a six month course in Canadian procedure and be called to any one of the several law societies, but that some political retards in Barbados are objecting on no sound legal basis at all to the appointment of a Bajan man from a poor, black background who has distinguished himself as lawyer (in two jurisdictions – England from which we take our common law and the USA from which we adopt many of the legal precedents) and judge in the USA and whose first law degree is Caribbean? I also find it interesting (and Jeff can and has confirmed this) that Marston Gibson has delivered many lectures to law students at Cave Hill. So some idiots are trying to suggest that he is okay to help train local lawyers at Cave Hill, but not to be Chief Justice?
But you know the problem? Self interest!!!! Some legal hacks have convinced themselves that if they derail Chief Justice Gibson, they themselves will be appointed Chief Justice. Well, I got news for them. The vast majority of the Bar welcomes The Chief and we do not want either the also rans or the never weres. QCs or no QCs. We want Gibson!!!! So slink back into the Bat Cave – it should be dark enough for what wunnah like to do there. Take the Nation/Sun with you.
The Nation obviously feels passionate about this issue. After making it a frontpage story yesterday they hammer home the point in its Monday editorial.
@Chris
Your last comment is not without merit. Assuming the government made a bobo despite Amused’s protestation to the contrary, the extent to which the content of the act would have to change would surely determine if it is precedent setting in any material way.
All are agreed the man has the intellectual and administrative capacity to deliver at a time when such skills are urgently required. So what is the problem again?
JC
Thanks for your encouragement!
Of course you know that without a strong head a man will fail.
How you telling me that ……… You never know until you try ………. and I have been trying wid so much sweet talk at you for years now and you wont even at least say that you will meet me by the clock in the Park (or are you too young to know bout those days?) LOL
I wish that your note below referred to the above issue instead of the matter of the CMO!
YOU don’t have a thing to loose. Personally, I would feel quite comfortable knowing that you had tried than not to have tried at all.
nOW YOU CANT SAY THAT WHAT EVER MY FAILINGS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN THAT I HAVE NOT DECLARED MY INTENTION PUBLICALLY TO YOU ON BU
KEEP SWEET HEAR
LOL
The law shouldnot be a schackle unto us. The commonwealth qualification issue is the most petty and obstructionist mode of operation for those who have an axe to grind….masquerading as strict consitutionalist. We have seen across the Caribbean in recent times where people in opposition have convieniently lauched legal attacks on people with dual citizenship issues in the same light, claiming their new found religion on upholding constitutional principle…only when it suits them. This case is no different.
@Yardbroom: “Perhaps, just perhaps – when this requirement was drafted – it was not envisaged that someone of the calibre of Marston Gibson would be Chief Justice of Barbados from the USA…
I suspect you are correct.
But the question remains: why do our laws ***forbid*** that possibility?
@Amused….
as is usual when arguing with DLP spin doctors they try to haul all sorts of red herrings across the trail…..
“You mean to tell me that any member of the Barbados Bar can go to Canada, take a six month course in Canadian procedure and be called to any one of the several law societies, but that some political retards in Barbados are objecting on no sound legal basis at all to the appointment of a Bajan man from a poor, black background who has distinguished himself as lawyer (in two jurisdictions – England from which we take our common law and the USA from which we adopt many of the legal precedents) and judge in the USA and whose first law degree is Caribbean? I also find it interesting (and Jeff can and has confirmed this) that Marston Gibson has delivered many lectures to law students at Cave Hill. So some idiots are trying to suggest that he is okay to help train local lawyers at Cave Hill, but not to be Chief Justice? ”
First being called to the bar as a lawyer in Canada (a Commonwealth country) has nothing to do with the legal statute for the elegibility for CJ of Barbados if he hasn’t practiced there.
Secondly neither the colour or the background of the Gentleman in question has nothing to do with the legal requirement for CJ of Barbados.
The fact that he has been called to the bar in England and the US is not relevant to the legal requirement for the post of CJ of Barbados.
That he is eminently qualified in the legal field is not in dispute.
The legal requirement for the person appointed to the CJ’s position is that they have practiced for 15 years in a Commonwealth jurisdiction.
Has the gentleman in question done this?
Yes? No?
For all the red herrings that you drag across the trail, it is this singular point that is relevant.
This has less to do with the Jurist in question and more to do with the slapdash way in which this appointment was handled, and once again how in a furious effort to cover up your ineptitude you try to blame someone else (ANYONE else) for your administration’s embarrassing screw up.
@David. My friend, would you not consider equating the Nation/Sun with the word “passionate” is a contradiction in terms? The Nation will be “passionate” about anything the serves the ends of the BLP, because its owners are BLP supporters. And the very moment those self-same owners shift their political allegiances (which they have done frequently in the past out of self-interest), the Nation’s “passion” will change. Interesting, huh! Maybe (but don’t hold your breath) the day will come when the Nation’s owners will stop trying to be the power behind Barbados’ political throne and start reporting the news and, if at all possible, getting it right for once. But I have not seen any airborne pigs lately (well, apart from one Airbourne).
I think this matter is just a proverbial storm in a teapot.
Government will not allow the CJ designate to be embarrassed and so the legal obstacles will be cleared up before he takes up office.
However, that it has occurred now says volumes about those whose duty it is to implement such decisions or the obduracy of those who make the decisions in the first place.
It should not have taken months for the parties concerned to have spotted the apparent stumbling block for Mr. Gibson to have taken up the post. Therefore it must be assumed that it is being dealt with or has been dealt with.
@checkit-out: “Therefore it must be assumed that it is being dealt with or has been dealt with.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but do not changes to the “law” here in Barbados require gazetting to be legal?
Just asking….
@Chris
Please advise URL which points to the Barbados Gazette or Hansard for that matter. (Expect to have to duck in anticipation of your response)
@BU.David: “Please advise URL which points to the Barbados Gazette or Hansard for that matter.
LOL… No need to duck (quack, quack…). We’re all actually in this together.
To the best of my knowledge, the “Official Gazette” of Barbados is not available on-line to *anyone*.
And don’t even try to ask for back (read: printed) copies more than a few months (even when you offer money for same).
Unlike, for example, what is available from Canada or the United Kingdom.
But, as always, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
@ Christopher Halsall | December 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM |
Of course they do. Did I put a time frame on how long it would take the matter to be dealt with? Does a solution of the matter require a 2/3 rds majority? Can Government push through a matter within days if it considered it necessary to do so? Have there been precedents for such?
@ Christopher Halsall December 13, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Quote: “At Yardbroom, “Perhaps, just perhaps – when this requirement was drafted it was not envisaged that someone of the calibre of Marston Gibson would be Chief Justice of Barbados from the USA”.
“I suspect you are right”.
************************
Hi Christopher
This is a tie-over from the Colonial Period when the word “Commonwealth” was often used to legitimate situations. Remember this was in the days of the Privy Council- held in England – it therefore meant it was reasonable to have a Higher Court in London: it was legitimate because it was part of the Commonwealth, it could therefore make decisions for us.
It has nothing to do with “capability” and they can spin it as they like; some would rather have biased mediocrity than unbiased “competence”. . . it is that some fear.
@checkit-out…
You agree with my statement of “December 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM” that all changes to the law must be gazetted…
And then you enter a terminal trajectory…
Next?
@Yardbroom: “This is a tie-over from the Colonial Period when the word “Commonwealth” was often used to legitimate situations. Remember this was in the days of the Privy Council- held in England – it therefore meant it was reasonable to have a Higher Court in London: it was legitimate because it was part of the Commonwealth, it could therefore make decisions for us.
Please forgive me for this, but are ***WE*** all not past this?
Or, perhaps put another way, should we not **ALL** be past this bovine excrement?
The Bureaucracy of Barbados is a blessing but alas there is a thin divide between blessing and curse.
Let me say up front that I would have no problem with Marston Gibson being appointed CJ as he is ably qualified (and being a Foundationer too) BUT according to the law of our land, he does not qualify. Simple!
My big problem is that this DLP government is always hell bent on changing laws after the fact to suit them. How can the government go now and change the law to accommodate their choice, wont this be setting a bad precedent?
The Dems came to power fooling Bajans that they were agents of change and wow, havent we gotten change!
I well remember the hue and cry over David Simmons’ appointment and there was no law to change. But that’s the Dems for you. Remember how they put up those bill boards illegally during the election campaign? Remember how they appointed Arnie Walters as an executive chairman and when it was pointed out that that was against the regulations of the BWA, they said so what, we can change the rules and to this date, it has not been brought to parliament and the man is still in place!
David Thompson probably did not know the law (did he really practice much, seemed more a politician all his life to me)? Did he really consult with Mia?
The DLP bloggers seemingly embarrassed at this another foul up by this government now want to beat up every BLP blogger and once you dont agree with their point of view, they are bringing in all this negativity about breaking the old boys and now the worn out cliche, the man is the son of a poor black man, typical DLP hand book regulations.
They will probably now have to wait until after the by election to have the two thirds to change the law or the speaker would have to vote. Wow, they keep going from bad to worse and dont blame the BLP, the statue of limitation has run out.
@Prodigal Son: “Let me say up front that I would have no problem with Marston Gibson being appointed CJ as he is ably qualified (and being a Foundationer too) BUT according to the law of our land, he does not qualify.
You sound ***EXACTLY*** like DR. GP.
Hmmmm….
@Christopher Halsall | December 13, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Grateful if you would explain your “terminal trajectory” point. It doesn’t compute for me. The matter is a simple one. The appointment of Marston Gibson as the new CJ was mooted on BU several months ago. BU even went so far as to publish an abbreviated CV which showed that his experience was primarily in the US. If 15 years of experience in the British Commonwealth is one of the stated requirements for a CJ here it would not be rocket science to determine that Marston Gibson would have been ineligible under the current constitution. That should have been determined months ago and the necessary legal corrections put in place. Since the matter has reached less than one month before the new CJ is due to take up office, it seems obvious that the relevant authorities must have done something about it or risk serious embarrasment to themselves and the new CJ if they hadn’t.
The point on gazetting any changes in law is not really germaine to the situation. Once the Government has the requisite votes it can pass and gazette anything it wants to. I’ve tried to point out to you that such can be done in a relatively short time frame even though it normally takes an inordinate amount of time. If Government wants to it can make the necessary changes fairly quickly.
In any case the Government appears to have acted quite slowly on many matters including this one and may still get egg on its face for this one.
But please explain your “terminal trajectory” and why it wasn’t called for in attempting to answer your question.
@David and @Chris. The appointment of the Chief Justice has not been gazetted as yet. These appointments are not usually gazetted until just before the person takes office. I believe that as the Leader of the Opposition was consulted on his appointment and the Nation swiftly followed BU in announcing the appointment (but not the Advocate) we can safely assume that the Nation checked with its opposition cohorts and received the confirmation it required. So now, 4 months later, it questions the validity of The Chief’s appointment on the eve of its being gazetted. Fascinating.
By the way, the late David Thompson did indeed practice law extensively and even appeared before the Privy Council. He was in partnership with Garth Patterson for a while. David Thompson was one of the lawyers who deservedly adorned the Inner Bar of Barbados. Whatever else idiots may want to question, it cannot be questioned that he was a first class lawyer.
@Amused: “David Thompson was one of the lawyers who deservedly adorned the Inner Bar of Barbados. Whatever else idiots may want to question, it cannot be questioned that he was a first class lawyer.
But then he died. And Live goes on…
Next?
@checkit-out: “But please explain your “terminal trajectory”
Have you ever heard of the term “crash and burn”?
Same idea.
@Chris. And thus is the fate of us all.
Why is it that the DEMS cant get anything right? I thought they had all the answers to every ill in Barbados and three years down the road they are so inept!
How could they mess up a simple thing like the appointment of a CJ? The Dems can talk all they want, if they want to maintain any credibility, they will have to go to parliament and change the law and how would that come over to most right thinking Bajans? No one has a problem with Mr Gibson’s qualifications, far from it. But Mr Gibson cannot be appointed just because DLP bloggers demand that… “I dont even consider him to be CJ designate but the Chief”… The law is, he had to be practicing in a Commonwealth country for a least 15 years. DLP, let us see how you will spin this one!
They just presented a budget and had to make so many adjustments and inplementation changes, what’s wrong with the DEMS?
A by election is due by January 22, up to now the PM cant announce a date, he’s keeping it close to his chest, he says. You know why, they made a stink when Owen Arthur announced an election date in December 2007, so it would look bad if they do the same before Xmas. Up to now the PM cannot decide on a candidate, he wont reshuffle his cabinet, he’s still doing the work a dying man did.
By the way, why did Garth Patterson break up the partnership with the first class lawyer, David Thompson? Is it true that David Thompson recommended himself to himself to become a QC?
According to GP, educate me!
@Amused: “And thus is the fate of us all.
In actuality, only those that don’t realize that time can be dilated…
Hi Chris; I bow out. These matters of time dilation, terminal trajectory, etc. are too high for me.
@checkit-out: “Hi Chris; I bow out. These matters of time dilation, terminal trajectory, etc. are too high for me”.
Please don’t bow out now my man! Stand up! When things get the most complicated is when you need to stand up the most!
Please stand up!!!!
Amused you see to have time to reply to certain post but no time to put up your explanation why there is no need to change the act. Most of the blog seem not to have problem with him being in the position other than saying they need to change the act to bring it inline for him to be appointed. So I put it to you why don’t you just present your evidence. We are still waiting.
Dems always run when you challenge their “logic”. They never answer questions.
I am still waiting on answers on CLICO from Bajan Panday.
By the way, I heard today, Mr Physical Deficit has thrown his hat into the St John ring!
@Prodigal Son (speaking in a gay voice): “Dems always run when you challenge their “logic”. They never answer questions.
I am still waiting on answers on CLICO from Bajan Panday. By the way, I *heard* today, Mr Physical Deficit has thrown his hat into the St John ring!
You *DON’T* say Prodigal Son!!!
Should we squeak?
Or laugh?
Imagine being cross examined by kiki…
I personally cannot.
Let’s also try to imagine being cross examined by Laurie Anderson…
If you can…
David
Yes, I objected to David Simmons’ move from M.P to C.J. I thought that we were tinkering with the judiciary and it will have its negative repercussions. Whether Mr. Simmons did a good job or not is besides the point, it would appear as though politics was taking over the judiciary and that is a dangerous thing to do. Similarly, in the case of Mr Gibson the same thing seems to be happening. From his academic qualifications and his experience, he seems well qualified but if he didn’t meet the other qualifications needed, that should disqualify him. Let me hasten and say that maybe, he is the best person for the job, since he is not in bed with the judiciary club of Barbados and maybe the DLP can apopoint someone to act in the position until they make the adjustments over a period of months but to jump hastily like the BLP, does not show a party who me they were for change.
I was sailing along reading the Editorial in today’s Nation when I came across the following statement
“As it stands right now, a Pakistani with 20 years experience has more right than Gibson to serve in the post, even though he is a “born and bred” Bajan”
Reading a bit further I found another statement which read “As stupid as that may seem, can we afford to tinker with the law in support of the man who is to be the number one law enforcer”
I think that the answer to the question lies in the first statement so my question is why should a Pakistani; Nigerian; Indian;Australian,Canadian or fill in the blank have more right than Gibson to serve in the post?
There are laws on the books in Barbados and countless other countries that are impractical in today’s world. There were put at a time when they were relevant for the time, they are not usually subject to any review and most often we only pay attention when some legal scholar brings them to our attention when the realty of them conflicts with the world of the 21st century.
If this law is amended who is harmed? Will the citizens of Barbados suffer irreparable damage? Will it set some dangerous precedent that will imperil the future of Barbadians ?
The previous PM stuck to the letter of the law when he appointed his Cabinet colleague to the post, this colleague met all the criteria according to the law, yet to many of us the appointment raised a quizzical eyebrow but the previous PM followed the law.
Sometimes the law is an ass
Bajans in the Disastapora should pay attention to this CJ ting.
Returning home can be challenging.
One interesting and somewhat alarming issue brought out by this topic, is the way some of you and others it seems, see Gibson as some sort of Messiah.
I strongly suspect that you will be very disappointed with the end result, not to say that he is not somewhat capable, but that there is far more to this issue than appointing Gibson.
But, who am I to say, give it two years and lets see.
Another issue being clarified, is the obvious incompetence that is now permeating Barbados institutions and even companies.
A previously strong BS&T has in the last ten years, lost its booming lumber yard and now its car dealdership.
Competition or incompetence?
Hospital in a mess, many schools not what they should be, a mess about to be made of the pharmacy industry due to the new ridiculous rules implemented in the budget, the Finance Permanent Secretary, according to reports, publicly alleging corruption in the collection of taxes, where will it end?
It is time to accept that Barbados is going down fast and it will take strong leadership and integrity to pull it back, not hairy fairy politics.
I suspect that 2013 has now become quite challenging for the incumbent party.
BU had hoped the PM would have moved with haste to quell the debate on the CJ controversy. Well there is always tomorrow and then the next day, why hurry on something as important as a CJ controversy.
Just thinking aloud.
I do not know Mr. Gibson personally but I know some good lawyer friends of his who think he is extremely talented and having also read his CV on BU I think that he is an excellent choice for the vacant CJ post and should be installed there when the dust settles and the Government finds some means to wipe the egg off its face figuratively speaking
Could there have been good reasons for mandating that a CJ should have 15 years recent experience in the commonwealth?
Is the legal system in the US totally compatible with the ones in the commonwealth?
How many of us follow the Judge Judy’s etc. on American TV and can opine that the system is the same as ours?
If the relevant laws are changed what are the provisions that are likely to be put in place to ensure that a prospective CJ with no or little recent practical experience in jurisprudence in Barbados or the Caribbean be quickly brought up to reasonable equivalence in that area?
I think they are looking for a reason why he can be appointed without changing the law since that would take less time.So we bring the case to Amused again to show us the reason why there is no need to change the act. I am sure the PM would use this same reason to confirm his appointment. So we just await Amused now for the reason.
BU – David- deserves a pat on the back for this story, from its inception we have been informed, as a result we have some knowledge of what is going on in our country; and have made a contribution, however little it is. Other media outlets have kept their doors firmly closed.
“Free information is the currency of a Democracy”
Thomas Jefferson- third President of America
April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826.
@Yardbroom
Thanks for your plaudit but be assured BU is able to do what it does because of patriotic Bajans and friends like yourself who believe in the power of freedom of expression as an inalienable right to protect our democracy.
BU-David;
I concur with Yardbroom’s sentiments above and I would also like to mention here that you should be congratulated for running the best blog in Barbados.
I think that the high quality of the contributions and the popularity and attractiveness of the blog are due in no small measure to your round-the-clock input in identifying and putting up topics for discussion, putting in your two cents worth in practically every topic, keeping the regulars up to date on almost everything that is going on in Barbados and beyond that is relevant to Barbados, maintaining a blog that accepts all shades of political thought, staying far from being judgemental, etc.
Your contribution to the blogosphere in Barbados is without equal. Please keep it up.
To David and all BU FANS
THIS POST IS OFF TOPIC
But I felt constrained to tell the forum of an impressive experience that I have just had with the Consul General office in Miami.
I emailed them to request information concerning application for a Caricom Certificate for CSME Free Movement Of Skills Application, and received an answer from the Consul himself in less than an hour, and a promise to obtain the necessary information and advice from the relevant authorities in Barbados.
Now we are prone to criticize the performance of our public servants when they err and fail to perform to our very demanding standards.
I think it is meet and right that we should also laud and applaud them when the perform far above our expectations.
I must confess too that this is not the first time that I have recieved such stellar service from this office in Miami.
Perhaps we can have a section on BU where contented Bajans can express thier praise and satisfaction when they recieve timely and top class service from our public servants; especially those who are serving our people abroad.
checkit-out
You are querying the compatability of the American system against the Commonwealth, that is food for thought. The O.J. Simpson’s case is a good example, even though he was deemed innocent of the murder, yet he was further charged with a lesser count which dogged him for many years until he ended up in prison, so when the American system wants you they can get you; there are many other cases that can be brought to fore. maybe, that’s why one of the qualifications for C.J is the person is fully knowledgable about our system. One bad move by Mr Gibson can ruin the appointment made by the DLP government. I still think he is the right man, or better that the DLP is looking in the right direction by selecting someone from outside the box but I’m not sure their choice is the right one.
The Governor General is an Attorney-at-law, the Prime Minister is an Attorney-at-law, the Attorney General is an Attorney-at-law, the Leader of the Opposition is an Attorney-at-law and Mr Gibson Chief Justice designate is an Attorney-at-law. You tell me that all of these could be wrong? If Mr. Gibson does not know whether or not his appointment is valid, then he should not turn up for work.
Anyone remembers the appointment of Arni Walters to the then and still non-existent post of Executive Chairman at BWA which in effect constructively dismissed the General Manager? This would just be a continuation of unlawful appointments.
The law of the land was changed to get rid of a former Chief Government Electrical Engineer in the early 1990′s!!!
The case was recently decided at the CCJ, 17 years later!!
The fundamental problem is this. Some Lawyers in Barbados are concerned that Marston Gibson might be the Dr.GP of the legal profession.
Imagine our very own Dr.GP as the CMO and his equivalent as the Chief Justice.
Too bad GP study Medecine instead of law.
If David Thompson was the first class lawyer as claimed on this blog, how come he did not first check the law governing the appointment of a CJ bearing in mind the man has never practiced law here? Wouldn’t it be common sense to check first?
Does anyone on this blog know anything of any rulings he may have made in the USA as a judge or is he purely academic?
We must be wary of academics. President Barack Obama appointed mainly academics a part of his economic team with no real world experience and boy oh boy, look at what’s going on now, they are leaving and going back to their cuckoo lands. There is a vast difference between the real world and the academic world…..reality!
It certainly was not smart of Mr Gibson to comment on the prostitute case recently to Tony Best if indeed he is going to be CJ!!
@ Hants
So we have a CJ designate, we have a CMO designate (Dr. GP), now what we gine do wid you and AH from Boston? Perhaps we could plan for a Bridgetown Tea Party instead of de Boston one. Murrdurrrr! Ah wunda wey dah Bonny P gorn wen yuh is lookin’[ fuh she say sumptin’?
@ de hood,
I am not in the same league as the above mentioned gentlemen so no high office for me.
De only degree I got is a underarm deodorant I does use.
But I will support de Bridgetown Tea Party as long as Dr.GP and BU bloggers involved.
@ SPECIAL ONE
there is really nothing wrong with being a theorists or academic per se
the problem begins when you can not see that academia is just a basis or spring board for action
whats the point of knowing doh ray me and you cant use that scale to make a song
or knowing how to count and you giving wrong change and robbing yourself or others
UNFORTUNATELY MANY CANT MAKE THE TRANSITION FROM USING WHAT THEY LEARNED TO CHANGE WHAT THEY SEE ABOUT THEM
SOMETIMES THOUGH, THEY ARE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE MANY WHAT THE STATUS TO STAY QUO!
@de hood
we have a CJ designate, BUT WE DO NOT have a CMO designate IN (Dr. GP), THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
GP IS KNOWN FOR BEING A REBEL AND TO SPEAK HIS MIND AND SPEAK HIS MIND PLAINLY
I reflected on the matter and realize that I blew my chances when as an assistant MOH I told of the then Chief 30 years ago .Then 20 years ago I did not take the opportunity to be a MOH or the offer to go study Gerontology.
I dont think they would like my style because I would be running around the country trying to to change things instead of sitting in an office with collar and tie pushing paper
@ Hants
Is Mr Gibson a hard headed straight foward chap who will seek to do what ought to be done? Then he will be in serious trouble home man. jealousy and envy will obstruct his path. But if he is appointed instead of working on a contract so that his services can not easily be terminated, then he might be able to make progress.
GP I am hoping that Mr.Gibson is a competent professional with integrity.
His advantage is that he has not been immersed in the culture of Bajan middle and upper class professionals.
I am hoping that he will see this as an opportunity to be the best CJ Barbados has ever had.
He will need the public support of people like Amused,Anonlegal,Jeff Cumberbatch and the few other honest members of the Legal Profession in Barbados.
Page 6 of todays Advocate convinces me that something is seriously wrong with some aspects of the Barbados justice system.
IMHO. Adult man plus 13 year old girl equal paedophile = jail plus de cat.
@Dr.GP after reading this I wonder if you should consider gine back or stay wey you is.
Did somebody sen home de onliest Heart Doc widdout a backup?
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/heart-care-risk/
Hants
Is Ishmael the onliest Heart Doc in Barbados? What about Moe, Massey or even Sparman?
@The Scout | December 15, 2010 at 2:19 AM |
“Hants , Is Ishmael the onliest Heart Doc in Barbados? What about Moe, Massey or even Sparman?”
How you mean “even sparman”? That sounds disparaging. Sparman is one of the best, you hear?
And , what about Hassell, and the most competent Harris?
@Hants | December 15, 2010 at 12:45 AM |
“@Dr.GP after reading this I wonder if you should consider gine back or stay wey you is.
Did somebody sen home de onliest Heart Doc widdout a backup?”
As usual HANTS, you all up in Canada, misleading people right down here in Barbados, where the actual action is!
I just only read the Nation article, and Dr.Cave’s statement warns about the suspension of lone “PAEDIATRIC” cardiologist Dr Richard Ishmael, NOT just cardiologist.
@Barbados Uh Come From “Hants misleading people”.
OK “lone “PAEDIATRIC” cardiologist Dr Richard Ishmael,”.
My mistake. I apologise to the BU family but the point is made.
@ HANTS
Am I reading correctly?
Ishmael was suspended by the QEH last Wednesday, December 10, essentially for using a hospital letterhead to address a concern involving Dr Alfred Sparman and Minister of Health Donville Inniss. The content of that November 17, 2010 letter is now a matter of litigation between the three.
The letter of suspension said that because Ishmael used a QEH letterhead, which is “an offence as set out at 5.2.1 and 5.2.5 of the Terms of Conditions of Service for the Employees of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital”, he would be “suspended on full pay with immediate effect, pending the outcomeof an internal investigation”.
That enquiry will be conducted on or before January 14, 2011.
The move against Ishmael was made public in yesterday’s DAILY NATION. QEH chairman Reverend Guy Hewitt was quoted then as saying that “the board offers its assurance that every effort has been taken by the QEH to ensure that patient care is not compromised during this period”.
Does the Reverend with balls [and Dexter] know the extent and import of the function of Ishmael at the QEH as outlined by Dr Cave? Does he care?
I see that we are still treating medical personnel in the MOH as though they are children or chattel.
HANTS
I get the distinct understanding that this priest with balls actually thinks not with his brains- but with his balls!
@GP,
You have to be truly patriotic to be a Specialist and work at the QEH in Barbados.
Perhaps the Priest will take care of the patients through prayer.
Hants
You have to be more than patriotic to stay in Barbados
I am one that believes in prayer…..but guess what? God uses doctors too so its stupid to fire them for frivolous reasons. I hope that this stupid decision costs the hospital dearly
The priest who is the QEH Charirman is one pompous arrogant man, I should know, I have to endure his pomposity on Sundays.
I think he is doing the Minister’s bidding.
But wait, how could they treat the late PM’s personal physician so, especially so soon after the PM’s death? What does Mara have to say, have they forgotten the late PM so soon?
But just remember these cardiologists here have been very jealous of Dr Sparman and have been trying every since he came on the scene to get rid of him but the man just keeps getting better and pulling ahead of the jealous ones!
de hood
I bizzy anuff fa de Yuletide. My fav’rit time a de year. But I jus peepin in evry now n den at BU ta see wah gine on.
I like de fella Gibson doe. My type. De age n evryting includin de ‘gap’ between he teets.
Special One
so wait, becausen he was de late PM docta, he shud get way wid murda? wah who he is? i doan kno wah he really do but ef he did rong he would gotta face up, supposen he did save my mudda.
By de way, I does specialize in hearts too. I like ta brek dem. LOLL
But wait, on a point a order. I hare dat Gippy Doyle gettin out Jan. nex yare. I doannnnnnnnnnn believe um. anybody cud tell me why?
I frighten anuff fa dese church peeple bosey.
GP said, “I hope that this stupid decision costs the hospital dearly’
**********************************************************************
I would totally agree, Doc. The sad part though, is that whatever it is going to cost (and it will cost), we the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the bill. AS USUAL! We have to pay for all the blundering that is taking place in this country now.
Special One
I dont know what Sparman do these boys.
re The priest who is the QEH Charirman is one pompous arrogant man, I should know, I have to endure his pomposity on Sundays. I think he is doing the Minister’s bidding
Man dat is evident even from this distance. I sorry for his church members. If he is doing the minster’s bidding I betta stay where I am. I have been sweet talking JC too long pun BU, so was planning to apply for a job in the Ministry of Health and come home and face de music but……… I can deal wid dese chaps bosey.
Hants
Seems I have to stay put man.
@ The Scout | December 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM | Mr Gibson trained as a lawyer in the Caribbean and UWI. He then went on to teach law at UWI. I think you can safely assume that he is fully conversant with Caribbean and Barbados law and well able to make the distinction between it and US law. For a lawyer of his calibre and training, it really is not a stretch at all.
@ Special One | December 14, 2010 at 10:36 PM | “If David Thompson was the first class lawyer as claimed on this blog, how come he did not first check the law governing the appointment of a CJ bearing in mind the man has never practiced law here? Wouldn’t it be common sense to check first?” I think you will find that David Thompson and Prime Minister Stuart and the now AG all checked the law and satisfied themselves that there was no impediment to the selection of Marston Gibson as CJ. And, in the fullness of time when the PM is good and ready, he will make his announcement and have the appointment gazetted. So you carry on as you like, but I strongly suspect it will do you no good.
@GP. The election of a CJ is not a term contract, but until age 70 with the possibility to extend to 72. The option to extend is usually exercised, with the sole exception being in the case of one D. Simmons. And it was the PM who decided not to extend the tenure of D. Simmons.
I for one would not blame Marston Gibson for opting out. The task he confronts is a monumental one. However, he is exactly the right man for the job. It is easy to find a good jurist, but that does not mean that he will be a good administrator. To find one who is both is very difficult. And almost impossible is to find one who is also a top scholar of the calibre capable to writing new law through his judgements. The Government has managed, in Marston Gibson, to do the almost impossible. Time for all to stop carping and looking for nonexistent loopholes and welcome Mr Gibson back home.
@ Amused
Thanks for your enlightenment,Sir.
If as you say the CJ would not be on contract, and therefore could not be dismissed in a slap dash, willy nilly, hodge podege way, then he should have no fear of coming since he would have the freedom of time to develop his program for improvement, and thereby make his mark.
I agree with you when you say “I for one would not blame Marston Gibson for opting out” but not because the task he confronts is a monumental one; but rather because of the plurality of morons whom he is destined to confront. It is not easy! I personally would not want to be somewhere that I am not wanted or appreciated; and its not as though he is begging “fuh wuk!”
I agree with you that it is not easy to find a man who is suitably excellent as a jurist, as an administrator and as a top scholar of the calibre capable to writing new law through his judgements. I don’t know you or him; but you seem to know about what you speak, and I am willing to trust your judgement on this matter. I do know that we don’t like our own, and that we do not like folk whom we cannot control. We also seem not to like those whom we cannot truly deride because they are not immoral or have obvious flaws.
I can not think of any one who was offered to the people as a top public servant in my time for whom there has been this hue and cry.
Barbados Ah Come From
I know Mr Harris personally, he is one of the best cardiac surgeons in business today. There is also a young man who is understudying him, his name is Doc. Allan Smith, his father is also a doctor.
@GP. I woul ask you to confirm that I have this right. The “plurality of morons” (I like that phrase and will borrow it if I may) is, in fact, a small minority of the population of the country as a whole. I believe you are referring to a plurality of morons that man the public offices, the Bar Association and the Judiciary and support organisations like the Registry (Court of Appeal Registry excepted).
@The Scout | December 16, 2010 at 12:09 AM | Barbados Ah Come From
“I know Mr Harris personally, he is one of the best cardiac surgeons in business today. There is also a young man who is understudying him, his name is Doc. Allan Smith, his father is also a doctor.”
Scout my friend, I don’t want to split hairs over this, but don’t just throw your alleged intimate knowledge of Mr.Haris in my face. You did NOT mention him when you listed the emminent Cardiac Specialists in Barbados …. I merely drew him to your attention in my previous post. And I did not like your disparaging comment about Dr.Sparman. You don’t need to respond .. let it rest.
@Amused
You have indeed interpreted me correctly, Sir.
You can use my phrase ad infinitum ad nauseamque.
@Hants | December 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM |
@GP,
“You have to be truly patriotic to be a Specialist and work at the QEH in Barbados. Perhaps the Priest will take care of the patients through prayer.”
Hants, to quote Georgie P:
“HANTS I get the distinct understanding that this priest with balls actually thinks not with his brains- but with his balls!”
I therefore think it utterly impossible for a Priest, or anybody for that matter, to prayer genuinely, legitimately, when the the only way he can think is with his balls! The result can only be carnal prayers! Besides, my view is that the reward appointment of this particular priest is not good for the QEH.
Barbados Ah Come From
O.K, I didn’t mention Mr Harris but I am saying to you that Mr Harris is not only my friend but my cardical surgeon, he and his team are the ones who operated on me quite recently and I have NOTHING but respect for, as I call him, THE GENTLE GIANT. So don’t tell me let it rest. I know nothing about Dr Sparman and I have no problem with Dr Sparman either but I far as I understand, he is NOT in the same class as Mr Harris.
@The Scout,
I have no doubt that you are sincere in your opinion of Mr.Harris. From what I have been told he is one of the best in Barbados.
It is good to hear you have had a positive outcome and I wish you many more years especially as a contributor to BU.
Bro. Scout, I am happy also that all went well with your heart surgery. No need to carry on , possibly putting that vital organ at risk. Continue to take care of yourself. I wish you and your family a wonderful and happy Christmas.