Justice must be seen to be done in the Commonwealth of Dominica

“Justice should be seen to be done” is not a term in law which should be taken lightly. What it means is quite simply is that, the public needs to see justice done or they will feel that the system is failing them. The whole validity of the justice system is based on the public’s consent to justice served.

R -v- Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading case famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.

For those who have forgotten the meaning of bias it still means: prejudice, partiality, inclination, leaning, bent, disposition, propensity, tendency, predilection, unfairness, proclivity, preconceived notion, foregone conclusion, favoritism, predisposition, preconception, susceptibility. I could go on but simply put, it is to affect unduly or unfairly.

The often cited aphorism of Lord Hewart from the McCarthy case, that “… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” is a paramount principle of the Rule of Law. And at this moment, at the dawn of our 31st Independence Anniversary, requires some serious consideration by all citizens of the Commonwealth of Dominica.

Lord Chief Justice Hewart, in this expression, encapsulates a principle that had been long known and often expressed and brought into common parlance the expression "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

Implicit in this aphorism is the public’s consent of justice served: the public’s satisfaction, the public’s approval, the public’s agreement that justice has been delivered – a sense of fairness, honesty, equality, equity and consistency before the law - that the law is just and that justice has been done.

Those persons responsible for representing, upholding, shaping, serving and dispensing justice in Dominica must ensure that the public consents – this is not to say that the public must agree with every decision of the courts or that the courts’ decision must be pleasing to the public – it simply means that that the public sees that justice is done and that equality and fairness before the law prevail. Such is our responsibility; that we must be neither complacent nor arrogant in that duty. For this reason more than any we must be consistent! All must sing from the same hymn sheet.

The public must not be witness to the magistrates at war amongst themselves – the prison at war with the courts – the Public Prosecution at war with defendants – the police switching cases - the legal system in total public disarray – and the justice system being brought into disrepute! These matters are being played out on talk shows, newspapers, websites and any other available media, but one wonders how many meetings if any are held between the parties to resolve the issues. How many directives if any are sent down from the Ministry of Justice or the responsible Government Department, to resolve these issues?

The public perception of unscrupulous, corrupt, and dishonourable practices within any branch of the Justice System; the police, the courts, the magistrates, justice departments … can only serve to undermine and corrupt the conventional public’s view of justice being seen to be done. I fear that we are on the verge of such a tragedy in the Commonwealth of Dominica.

Term limits for Caribbean leaders?

The debate is on again regarding term limits for Caribbean leaders - http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/07/090709_forumtermlimits.shtml

My Full BBC response to term limits 10 July 2009.

No! Those persons who have been following my recent discussions online will be shocked by my answer but let me explain why I say no to term limits.

Last year in celebration of Dominica’s 30th Independence Anniversary I completed a nine-part series for The Chronicle and www.theDominican.net entitled The Rule of Law vs the law of the jungle. Any quick Internet searches will reveal those papers. Among several other issues I highlighted a string of countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean that had suffered economically, politically and socially at the hands of leaders turned tyrant!

I showed a pattern of behaviour that led to dictatorship; even by those who got in through free and fair elections! In most cases it began by changing or amending the constitution to allow an incumbent head of state either an extra term or unlimited reign in office. I will not repeat the examples here because they are too many for this short response. However, we have two current examples staring us in the face at this moment, Niger and Honduras!

I have just recently published a paper on the Dominica News Online entitled “Consolidating democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” http://www.dominicanewsonline.com/all_news/commentary/6519.html - In this paper I also touch on term limits regarding the situation in Honduras and Niger. The constitutions of both countries have term limits enshrined, but that did not stop their leaders from seeking to extend their term in office.

On 28 June 2009, the Supreme Court, acting in accordance with Article 237 of the Honduran constitution, ordered the Honduran military to remove President Manuel Zelaya, for breaching the constitution i.e. seeking to extend his term in office. And the rest is recent history –the OAS wants him reinstating but has the OAS stated that he should respect the constitution and term limits? No!

Niger’s constitution allows a president to serve a decade in office, two five-year terms. In May 2009, the constitutional court of Niger rejected a bid by its current President Mamadou Tandja, to hold a referendum on extending his time in office. The court proclaimed this act illegal, just like the Honduran court told President Zelaya! The Niger President Mamadou Tandja reacted by dissolving parliament and imposing emergency rule! Has the African Union told him to respect the constitution and term limits? No!

So as much as I am against authoritarian and military rule, history has shown that imposing term limits has not stopped any President or head of state who has dictatorial desires or ambitions! They have all shown their true colours by rubbishing the constitution to maintain and consolidate their rule. So I ask myself, “What exactly does imposing term limits serve? What is its purpose? What are the objectives of term limits? What does it aim to solve?” If you believe that this will stop potential dictatorship or abuse of power, then you have no idea what has been happening in the real world.

I conclude by stating here that if a people so desire to keep re-electing the devil to lead them – then is that not their democratic right? In fact I will argue that term limit in itself is an assault on and not an aid to the democratic process. Term limits can only work within a wider framework that empowers the courts, the opposition, and other institutions of governance to maintain the balance of powers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/caribbean/meta/tx/2115rep?size=au&bgc=003399&lang=en-cb&nbram=1&nbwm=1

CARICOM - 30th annual mid-year summit Guyana July 2009

Tell Caribbean leaders what you think about CARICOM and further Caribbean integration - As Caricom heads of government hold their 30th annual mid-year summit in Guyana this week, July 2nd to 5th 2009, there's much debate over whether the regional grouping is living up to its mandate. Click on this BBC Caribbean link and post your comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/06/090630_forumcaricom.shtml

OECS Economic Union - inauguration set for June 18th 2010

The OECS was established with the June 18th 1981 signing of the Treaty of Basseterre. OECS Member Governments have taken the decision to move beyond the current areas of functional cooperation, and to establish an OECS Economic Union. The Governments have agreed to have the inauguration of the Economic Union on June 18th 2010, which marks the beginning of the OECS 30th anniversary year.
http://www.oecs.org/Press/news_28th_anniversary.html

CARICOM - a matter of survival

The pressure mounts for CARICOM as rival sub-regional agreements detract from deeper Caribbean integration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/06/090612_goldingcaricom.shtml

PM: Caricom at risk - JamaicaObserver.com

PM: Caricom at risk - JamaicaObserver.com

Shared via AddThis

CARICOM AT RISK says Jamaica Prime Minister

The Prime Minister of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, is on to something in his caution, “that the existence of CARICOM, the only organisation dedicated to the economic interests of Caribbean countries, was at risk.”

When he goes on to say, "There are a number of things that are happening now that are destabilising and threatening the existence of CARICOM," and that, "The political integration that is being pursued by Trinidad and a number of countries in the Eastern Caribbean may very well be commendable, but I believe that it is at the detriment to the deepening and strengthening of CARICOM," this is a clear indication that something is already very wrong.

Warning against the support of a rival organisation, Golding said: "I believe that the membership of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), which now engages three CARICOM countries, is going to have a destabilising effect on CARICOM. It is going to distract, it is going to divert and it is something that I believe that CARICOM leaders need to examine."

What is shocking about this statement is the fact that the Prime Minister saw it fit to raise these views at a public function and not in a private meeting of or with fellow CARICOM leaders. The PM can sense, like so many of us Caribbeanists, that the Caribbean agenda is going askew. This is a desperate and commendable plea by the Jamaican Prime Minister to his colleagues in CARICOM that the Caribbean ship, if not sinking, is at the very least sailing in the wrong direction. Or is it trying to sail in too many directions all at once!

In his conclusion the Prime Minister shared his most foreboding observation when he said, “I do not believe that any of us can believe that we are going to be better off trying to swim in this Caribbean sea on our own, but it is time for us to stop playing games, for us to stop mouthing integration and professing our commitment to this process when the pragmatic demonstration of that commitment is so often not being brought to the fore."

And so I too concur with all that PM Golding had to say. As a post-grad student of International Relations – Globalisation and Governance, and as someone who has worked at the EU Regional level for the past six years, I have found it extremely difficult to understand any linkages or alignment between the myriad of regional-integration initiatives being pursued by the Caribbean region at this given time. Today the main drivers of Caribbean regional-integration appear to be CARICOM, OECS, OECS+T&T, CSME and ALBA.

My every commentary for BBC Caribbean or for any other Caribbean News network has highlighted the confusion for the Caribbean citizenry to make sense of all of these different initiatives. As a senior policy person I find this totally confusing and disconnected. How then is the average Caribbean citizen supposed to make sense of these?

The obvious danger with all these different initiatives is not just the simple fact that they all lead down different paths and not towards a shared common goal or objective, but it is the fact that finite regional resources are having to be spread too thinly in servicing all these initiatives. Therefore no one initiative receives enough concentrated resource and focus to truly deliver real integration for the Caribbean. Because of the spread between and across CARICOM, OECS, OECS+T&T, CSME and ALBA, not enough time and energy are available to truly deepen any one of these to achieve real integration.

We are therefore left with a Caribbean region besieged with a plethora of good regional-integration intentions but no real substance and leadership to allow for true integration. Policy statements launching new regional initiatives coupled with haphazard attempts at a fragmented delivery does not make up for real regional-integration strategy/policy. I should know because I have been the Regional Economic Strategy Manager at a UK Regional Development Agency for the past six years.

Cuba rejects OAS readmission

The Cuban government has formally rejected a decision of the Organisation of American States allowing it to rejoin the group. http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/06/090608_cubaoasupdate.shtml

How could so many “leaders” get it so wrongly? Is it sentimentality? Is it nostalgia? Is it the egotistical need of political leaders for their ‘coup de grâce’ – that grand strike by which to be remembered? So, without requiring, bargaining or negotiating any further ounce of freedom and liberty for the Cuban people we have voted to agree Cuba back into the fold of free nations at the OAS level. Fine! Great! I am all for it! I too am a bit sentimental about the iconic Cuban revolution – but I am not a democratically elected leader of anywhere – I do not carry the same level of moral responsibility and ethical obligation that elected leaders do (off-course I am raising the standards too high for our elected members) – but even I would have required more freedom for the Cuban people!

So my question to Caribbean and Latin American leaders is a simple one – why do we believe that the people of Cuba are entitled to less freedom and liberty than the rest of us in Latin America and the Caribbean?

It is becoming more and more apparent as President Obama progresses into his role as President of the U.S.A, especially if you followed his speech in Egypt to the Muslim world, that the days of a confrontational, antagonistic, aggressive, control-freak America is over. President Obama went as far as recognising not just the democratic system of government but other forms/systems of government! Compared to other American administrations over the past 60 years, you will all agree that in this administration Cubans have a friend and not an enemy, and the world has a peacemaker and not an antagonist.

How then are the Castro brothers going to justify denying Cubans rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of opposition, rights to free assembly, rights to free movement, rights to individual/self determination? Can you who sit in Dominica, Venezuela, St Vincent, and other free countries in the Region imagine those basic rights taken away from you? Would you like that for yourself? I would think not!

Cuba does not want to re-enter the OAS at this moment because the principles of the OAS will impede the Cuban administration ability to keep the Cuban populace under control!

5th Summit of the Americas - 17 April 2009

5th Summit of the Americas - commentary for BBC Caribbean forum (17 April 2009)

Until the day when the Caribbean can agree on/at firstly a summit of the Caribbean; CARIFORUM, CARICOM, OECS, CSME, until such day, we will only be pawns in other people’s games as we will be at this Summit! America and Cuba are already working towards a resolution. However, because it suits certain Caribbean and Latin American politicians to go on and on about this, we are quickly seeing a summit dominated by discussions on that American/Cuban relationship.

The fact of the matter is that by the end of Obama’s presidency America and Cuba would have normalised relations and this summit would have had nothing to do with it. Wake up my people, the world is moving quickly! Our leaders should be articulating the more urgent regional priorities. Just look, not too far back, on our handling of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU, not a very brilliant Caribbean performance.

Now let’s turn to the Americas long running dispute (between Caribbean and Latin America with USA interest) of import tariff on the region’s bananas entering the EU. That dispute is actually one of the Americas which has been left to the EU to resolve. Why can’t we resolve these issues amongst ourselves? Why are we fighting each other at the WTO and waiting for Europeans to resolve our problems?

Then there are the border issues, for example Venezuela’s encroachment on other countries sovereignty; the long running territorial disputes with Guyana and Venezuela’s claim to Dominica’s Bird Island. Then we have the Caribbean stuck between the drug games of Latin America and the USA with neither of these blocks truly appreciating and paying up for the detrimental impact that their drug business is having on Caribbean lives, instead we seem to get blamed by the Americans and totally ignored by Latin America on this issue.

Therefore until the Summit of the Americans can reach the level of maturity whereby we can resolve such issues ourselves then its resolutions remain insubstantial with no binding and lasting impacts.

We now know that the resolve from the recently concluded London G20 will impact negatively on several of our sectors, with the most direct impact being on the Financial Sector i.e. Off –Shore Banking; therefore we have gone into reactionary mode – trying to out the fire after the spread! But months prior to the London G20 we knew the G20 Agenda – but how much did we do to influence the outcome and have a positive result for our region? Nothing! Several of our members at the Summit of the America’s are members of the G20; Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the USA. So what did we in the Americas do prior to the G20 to influence the decisions there?