WRONG_WOEID WRONG_WOEID

AG- Between A Rock and A Hard Place

AG- Between A Rock and A Hard PlaceIn most democracies, one of the tenets for peaceful and orderly societies is not only a belief that the “...Rule of Law” shall prevail, but also due regard and obedience shall be shown to it.

Framers of the Constitution Order 1981, in an attempt to inculcate civil obedience to Lawful Authority, they have stipulated fundamental principles by which the people and the State shall abide. Though citizens have found themselves locked in constant “...Litigious Battles” against those they have elected to manage public affairs, it has not changed the constitutional principle that the “...State shall obey the law.” For instance, as it affects adherence and/or obedience, the principle states “...The people of Antigua and Barbuda recognized that the Law symbolizes the public conscience; ...That every citizen owes to it an undivided allegiance not to be limited by any private views of justice or expediency and that the ...STATE IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW” [Principle D].

STATE SUBJECTED TO LAW

Framers of the Constitution anticipated that there will be need for “...Enactment of Laws,” inter alia, for “...Social control and Good Governance.” They expected the Legislature to “...act responsibly, fairly and justly in keeping with the founding principles of the Constitution and the Oath of Office.” It states in part “...I Justin Simon do swear that I will honour; ...uphold; ...PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION of Antigua and Barbuda and the Law.” In the controversial removal of the positions “ ...Chief Executive officer and Chief Registration office from the Supervisor of Elections Lorna Simon, one of the architects, Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP had used very colourful language in his submissions. Though it was a legal exercise of futility, he may still be credited for the classically coined phrase “...Dynamic Evolution of Society.” Clearly, the Court was more concerned about the substantive nature of the case, than it was with sentimentality. When Her Ladyship Justice Claire Henry delivered the Judgement surrounding the “...Legislative Tinkering” with “...Powers, Functions and Role exercisable by the Supervisor of Elections Lorna Simon, she had “...Judicially subjected the State to the Law.” The Court had declared the legislative initiatives “...Unconstitutional, Null and Void” [ANUHCV2012/0164: Para 37]. Now with humility, he may say “...Whatever my lot, it is well with my Soul.” 


JUDICIAL VANGUARDS

The representative principle was applicable to elected Legislators. They shall always show reasonability, constitutionality and justification for parliamentary enactments that shall always or manifestly appear to be seen as intended for the “...Common Good.” As it affects the two “...Dangerous Arms of Governance, “...the Executive and Legislature,” the Judiciary and its Courts were established as “...vanguards of the people, their rights, freedoms and liberties.” Therefore, theirs are the functions of administering and dispensing justice as it demands. Thus, inherent in its jurisdictions, the High Court of Justice not only has jurisdictional supervision over inferior Courts, but also scrutinizes very closely the workings of the two previously identified “ ...Erratic Arms of government.

LEGAL CHALLENGE/SARCASM

The opponents were at the time objecting to the legislative measures, reasonably suspected to have the effect of relieving Supervisor of Elections Lorna Simon of her “...Constitutional powers and functions as (i) ...Chief Executive officer; (ii) ...Chief Registration officer and (iii)...Chief Elections officer” [No. 17 of 2001]. When audio recordings revealed strenuous objections to the controversial amendments being legislatively sought to with the Representation of the People Act, No.12 of 2011 by Member of Parliament Honourable Molwyn Joseph’s, the Attorney General could have been audibly heard suggesting to opponents “...It is not unconstitutional; ...After the Bill is passed, if you are man enough, you can take it to the Court” [2011]. Sarcastically referring to disgraced Ponzi Schemer R. Allen Stanford, Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP may have felt that he was standing on solid legal and/or constitutional ground.

BAD ADVICE

While the Honourable Attorney General Justin L. Simon QC, had exhibited purposefulness and confidence, opposing parliamentary colleague, Honourable Molwyn Joseph, without the benefit of “ ...formal Legal Education,” in humility and respect,  he submitted that the Attorney General was rendering “...Bad Advice to the Government.” Even outside the parliamentary Chambers members of the wider community saw the amendments as designed to shave off the “...Constitutional responsibilities” of the Supervisor of Elections. Thus, like his parliamentary colleagues, he was adamant that the contentious Amendments to the Representation of the People Act [No.17 of 2001] had contravened the provisions enshrined in the Constitution. These affect the exercise of “...Powers, Functions and Role of the Supervisor of Elections” [C.O. 1981: Sections 47 & 67].

IMPAIRMENT OF JUDGMENT

While issues are likely to develop over his tenure, no aspersions may be expressed over his “...devoutness, commitment, integrity, intellectuality, legal knowledge, professional competency and prowess.” Nonetheless, in the unenviable capacity of Attorney General, the Honourable Justin L. Simon Q.C. MP, may have found himself sandwiched between a group of “ ...strong-willed and tenacious intellectuals.” Many of whom possess “...legally trained minds,” while others, seemingly “...trapped in egoism. Still there are others with minds saturated with misconceptions and preconceived ideas.” Some prattled noisily in support. Most appeared daft, thereby being easily persuaded or swayed by reasons far removed from their intellectuality. Some have allowed fear to affect their reason and conscience, thereby allowing impairment of their judgment. Many had reportedly supported “...Irrational Decisions” as to be favored with “...Security of Executive Tenure.”

HECKLING TAUNTING

Evidence of these may have been seen in the controversial Bill. The unmistakable “...Mischief Aimed by Parliament,” was the removal of “...TWO-THIRDS” of the responsibilities “...Provided by Law for the Supervisor of Election.” Among the responsibilities identified were (i) “...Chief Executive Officer; (ii) ...Chief Registration officer; and (iii) ...Chief Elections officer.” Ironically, the Constitutional provisions stipulated that it requires a “...Bill of Alterations and “...TWO-THIRDS of the Membership of the House,” in legitimately making such alterations to any provision contained in the Constitution [Section 47]. By the time the Honourable Attorney General et al, had finished “ ...heckling, taunting and daring opponents; ...by the time the voting was over and ...by pronouncement of House Speaker D. Giselle Isaac-Arindell that“...The Ayes have it,” they had legislatively shaved off the first two positions,” leaving the Supervisor to function every five years as Elections Officer” [No.12 of 2011].

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

For ordinary infringements, it is to the High Court of Justice that aggrieved citizens shall seek redress for Torts committed against “...their person, property or other interests.” It is also the High Court of Justice that legal challenges are mounted to determine the “...Legality or Illegality” of any Law that might be seen as ultra-vires to the provisions of the Constitution. It was obvious that due to the nature of the legal challenges to the issues at Bar, the Court appeared to have given “...Acute Considerations” to every point raised or objected by both Applicants and Respondents. Instructively, the Court in exercising its judicial functions sought to make clear distinctions between (i) ...Ordinary Votes and (ii) ...Majority Membership Votes” in keeping with that which framers of the Constitution Order 1981 intended in Section 47.

LEGAL QUANDARY

From time immemorial, “...Common Law Courts” have always presumed that Parliament intends that a discretionary power was to be exercised reasonably, justly and in accordance to the dictates of “...Existing Laws.” Her Ladyship Justice Claire Henry may have caused “...twiddling thumbs; ...scratching heads and/or ...stroking beards- jet black or pearly white.” The contentious phrases (i) ...Provided by Law; and (ii) ...Prescribed by Parliament,” have been the subject of disagreement by Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon  QC MP, particularly as they affect the “...Powers; ...Functions and ...Role of the Supervisor of Elections as “...provided by Law” [Representation of the People Act: No. 17 0f 2001], and as “...provisionally entrenched in the Constitution Order 1981” [ANUHCV2012/0164]. It was clear in the Court’s interpretations that Parliament intended very different meanings. Writes the Court “...The framers must have intended that the phrase ...as may be provided by Law, used in Section 67 (2) would be given a different meaning” [Para 41: November 6, 2013]. Undoubtedly, the ruling appeared to have left Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP, not onlyin a “...LEGAL QUANDARY” over their “...meanings and/or interpretations,” but also a tenure hanging perilously at the edge of a slippery slope.

PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER

The office of Attorney General is provided under Section 82 the Constitution. The provision is specific in itsintent and purpose. It states “ ...There shall be an Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda who shall be the ‘Principal Legal Adviser’ to the Government, and who shall be appointed by the Governor General” [CO. 1981]. Such appointment may be made of a person “...within the Legislature and who possess a Legal background; or an un-elected person with a Legal Practice, as in the case of the Honourable Justin L, Simon QC MP. Section 70 (2) provides for the appointment of an Attorney General to be a Minister and Member of the Cabinet. However, an appointee in such capacity, MAY NOT necessarily be appointed as a Minister of Cabinet. This might be looked at from the British model.


POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

The British principle that no Attorney General should be a Cabinet Minister was said to be a “...Political Convention, rather than a Law.” Hence, there is nothing that prohibits Attorneys General from attending Cabinet meetings. However, it was considered preferable to exclude Attorneys General, so as to “...draw distinction between Attorney General offering legal advice on “...Political Decisions and repercussions of actions to be initiated.” Alternatively, such advice may have been given in “...writing.” Research showed that for a short time, two Attorneys General, “...Lord Birkenhead [1915] and Douglas Hogg [1928]” sat in the House of Lords to offer legal advice to Her Majesty’s Government” [Wikipedia].

UN-ELECTED APPOINTEES

Seemingly in keeping the “...Un-Elected Appointees” from the political environment, the Attorney General was deemed a “...Non-Cabinet Minister” and allowed to lead the assigned office independent of the Cabinet.” Today, it was widely known that “...un-elected appointees” have been subjected to untold difficulties. These include “...subtle insults, antagonism, snubbing and rejections” by the “...Elected Parliamentary and Executive Membership.” These may or may not be the experiences of Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP, operating in what, rightly or wrongly, critics have described as a “...Dog-Eat-Dog Political Environment.”

NOTORIOUS ONE-TERM TENURE

The nation’s parliamentary records may reflect that as an elected member, former Parliamentarian Sir Gerald Anderson Watt KCN QC, previously held the position of “ ...Attorney General” [1971-1976]. There was evidence of radicalism among the group and Sir Gerald was among the fearless members. He was as determined as his former leader, (decedent) Sir George Hubert Walter KCN. Though Sir Gerald had never publicly admitted his involvement, reliable sources revealed that he had instigated the immediate sacking of former Labour Minister Donald Halstead and ...Sir Selvin Walter for suspected behavior, considered inconsistent with “...Integrity in Public Life” [Honoured: November 1, 2013]. The group’s “...Notorious One-Term Tenure” ended in1976, after their administration had reportedly exerted burdensome economic pressure on the electorate. Many could neither escape the “...heat from the frying pan nor the fire” [1971-1976].

HISTORICAL POSITION OF OFFICE

Research showed that the Office of Attorney General was established in Britain in 1243, when a professional attorney was engaged to represent the King’s interest in Court. In 1461, the position was said to have taken on a “...political role” when the holder of the office was summoned to the House of Lords to “...Advise the Government on legal matters.”In 1653, the Attorney General reportedly became the “...Crown’s Adviser and Representative in Legal Matters. Consequently, the twentieth century saw a significant shift of the responsibilities of the Attorney General from “...Institution and Representations in litigious proceedings to providing “...Legal Advice to His Majesty.” Thus, except in special cases, the responsibilities of Her Majesty’s Attorneys General were shifted to advising (i) ...Individual government departments (ii) ...Individual government Ministers” [Wikipedia].

COLONIAL LEGACIES

When Britain relinquished sovereignty over regional small-island States, now called the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), many were left with “...Colonial Legacies for Self Governance.” Specific to Antigua and Barbuda, these were provided to the nation on November 1, 1981 and include (i) ...a Constitution Order; (ii)  ...a Monarchial presence with Executive Authority vested in Her Majesty [Section 68]; (iii) ...a Governor General as Her representative [Section 22]; (iv) ...a Parliamentary System of Democracy; (v) ...a Law making machinery-the Parliament or Legislature and (vi) ... an Executive for public administration; and (vii)a Judiciary.”

CITIZEN’S FRUSTRATION- CIVIL LITIGATION

While some not so law-abiding citizens have run afoul of the Law, some Legislators may have demonstrated complete ignorance of the “...Founding Constitutional Principles.” From Law enforcement training, personnel had been advised to scrutinize Laws bordering repression. These Laws, when enacted have always posed difficulties for enforcement agencies and serious implications for “...Civil Obedience and/or the Rule of Law.” The opposite has always been “...Civil Disobedience.” Invariably, there has been blatant disregard to the Law, by both the “...citizenry and governing States.” In spite of the frequently spewed rhetoric “...Government of; ...By and ...For the people,” citizens within regional States have been constantly faced with “...Oppressive and Unjust Laws” [Attorney: former Deputy Commissioner of Police Bertram Millwood: Jamaica: 1987]. Invariably, “...Public Administration” had been transformed from “...Citizens Frustration” to “...Costly Civil Litigation.”

ADVERSE JUDICIAL DECISIONS

In recent times, with a string of “ ...unfavorable or adverse judicial decisions” handed down against the State by (i) ....the High Court of Justice; (ii) ...Appellate Court, and (iii) ...Her Majesty’s Privy Council,” these must be cause of concern to the nation’s “ ...Principal Legal Adviser” [Section 82]. Though his lot might be left to speculations, dogged by “ ...Adverse Judicial Judgments,” Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP, may not say “...Nobody knows what troubles I’ve seen or seeing.” Thus, as the cliché suggests, he may have been “...Inescapably trapped between a rock and a hard place.” While he may have been pondering over these decisions, he might silently sing “...Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen; ... Nobody knows but Jesus; ...Sometimes I’m up; ...Sometimes I’m down; ...Although you see me going on so; ...Oh yes, I’ve got my trials here below” [Negro Spiritual]. While the spotlight might be beamed at the performance of the Attorney General, “...Judicial Failures,” reflect the “...Collectively Responsibility” of both the “...Executive and Legislative arms of Government; ...its membership and might be evidence of how members collectively use their endowment with “...Reason and Conscience.”

ENACTMENT OF LAWS

The enactment of Laws might be evidenced from the constitutional provisions that states “...Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make Laws for the “...Peace; ...Order and ...Good Government of Antigua and Barbuda” [Section 46]. Such necessarily includes enactment of Laws for the efficient and effective functioning of “...an Electoral System [Section 61] and appointment of Supervisors of Elections. Thus, constitutionally, they have inserted “...provisional clauses,” not only for the exercise of “...powers, responsibilities, functions, duties and/or role,” but also for “...Security of Tenure” [Section 67]. Framers of the Constitution reasonably anticipated that an Attorney General might be pushed into enacting Laws that could make people bawl. Thus, this may have been the primary reason for the clause “...Except as is otherwise expressly provided in the Constitution, no Law may abrogate; ...abridge; ... or infringe or authorize the abrogation,   abridgement or infringement of any of the fundament rights and freedoms of the individual hereinbefore recognized and declared” [ANU: Section19].

BAD LEGAL ADVICE-BAD POLICY DECISIONS

In non-governmental organizations (NGO”s) as it is in governance, “...Bad Legal Advice” rendered by a nation’s Principal Legal Adviser to the “...Executive arm of government,” was known to have resulted in “...Bad Policy-Decisions.” Conversely, it was the knowledge that, for all intents and purposes, “...Good Legal Advice,” rationally and professionally considered and given in good faith, but subjected to “...Executive Rejection” had produced similar results. It requires no “...Rocket Science” to know that the resultant effects of “...Executive Rejections” of professional legal advice, has always been “...Total Failure.” Logic, therefore, dictates that such rejection was always going to be fraught with difficulties for an Attorney General.

AGAINST BETTER JUDGMENT

Seemingly, framers of the Constitution anticipated that the nation’s Attorney General will have been influenced in acting against his better legal judgment. Demonstrating eloquence within the House of Representatives, Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP will have been so influenced. In the seemingly ill-advised initiative to amend the “...Representation of the People Act No.17 of 2001,” the Honourable Attorney General appeared to have been “...Soaring high on Cloud 9.” Seizing and savoring the moment in expressing his professional knowledge and adeptness, he may have injudiciously “...Tinkered” with legally established Law andconstitutionally stipulated procedures. Compounding the unconstitutionality of the initiative,” he could have been audibly heard contemptuously and daringly taunting his parliamentary colleague, Honourable Molwyn Joseph.

CONSTITUTION-SUPREME COURT ORDER

Anticipating that a “...Majority Vote” by members of the Executive could influence the rejection of “...perfectly reasonable professional legal advice by an Attorney General, framers of the Constitution had prudently inserted provisional protection. These were intended to prevent “...Legislative Tinkering” with the “...Constitution Order 1981 and “...the Supreme Court Order 1967” . Clearly, the framers had considered the “...SACROSANCTITY” of the two entities. In other words, they are inviolable. Consequently, these were not only subjected to the full protection of the Judiciary, but also guarded with “...hawk’s eye.” Thus, should the citizens feel aggrieved over “...Executive and/or Legislative” actions, deemed adverse to their “...collective interests or the national and/or common good,” they reserve the right to initiate actions necessitating Judicial Review proceedings for appropriate “...Remedies and/or Declarations.”

PROBLEMATIC PHRASES

As the phrases affect the powers of the Supervisor of Elections, these could be problematic for members of the two most “...Dangerous Arms of Government.” Given the existence of current Law [No.17 of 2001] and the Constitution [Section 67], “...as may be provided by Law” in the exercise of her functions, suggests that which factually exists, while “...as may be prescribed by Parliament,” suggests that which might be “...rationally, justly and legally” considered by Parliament and passed into Law. For instance, Section 67 of the Constitution speaks to “...unspecified functions and duties of the Supervisor of Elections.” It also anticipates that specifics “...may be prescribed by Parliament at some future time.” Simple logic, therefore, dictates that the “...functions, powers and duties” shall be performed only by the Supervisor of Elections as provided in (I) “...the Representation of the People Act 1975; (ii) ...Adapted as Existing Laws in 1981 and (iii) ...Amended by No.17 of 2001. Therefore, not only these form part of the “...Consolidated Laws,” but unlike the ill-conceived No. 12 of 2011, the former never seek to “...reduce and/or transfer powers already provided by Law” to be exercised by the Supervisor of Elections.

THE INTERPRETATION ACT

The Interpretation Act, provides useful “...Definitions and Interpretative Guidance.” For instance, Section 58 defines “...Power as- any authority; ...discretion and ...privilege.” Section 16 of the Interpretation Act was considered for development of the phrases (i) “...as may be provided by Law and (ii) ...as may be prescribed by Parliament” that may have been considered confusing. The Section unambiguously states “...Where an enactment ‘CONFERS’ a power or imposes a duty, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires” [Chapter 224]. It interprets Functions as “...Jurisdictions; ...Powers and ...Duties.” Applying this Section to the “...Representation of the People Act, No.17 of 2001,” this provides for the responsibilities assigned to the Supervisor of Elections to be so performed- “...from time to time.”

RUTTHLESS EXPLOITATIVE OPPRESSIVE

Before and after independence, some regional leaders were suspected and/or accused of emulating idols in the persona of “...former Cuban strongman Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The latter had attempted to hoodwink that nation’s populace into making him “...President for Life.” Failing a bid in 2007, he succeeded in winning only a third six year term in 2009” [Wall Street Journal: February 17, 2009]. . Framers of regional Constitutions anticipated” that those “...obsessed with power” might become overly “...ambitious, adventurous and aggressive.”For all intents and purposes, framers also anticipated thatsome leaders were likely to demonstrate a propensity toward becoming” ...Ruthless Exploitative and Repressive.” Hence, in such obsessive mode, some would do the unthinkable. Seemingly the framers anticipated that those appointed to positions of “...Attorneys General,” might be influenced against their conscience, professional wisdom, legal training and knowledge and practice in “...TINKERING” with entrenched Constitutional provisions. Not only had they anticipated reform of the Constitutions, but also “...TINKERING” with the Electoral processes, and that it might necessitate judicial interventions.

REPUBLIC CONSTITUTION

As in the case of Antigua and Barbuda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines was provided with similar constitutional arrangements. For instance, the respective nation’s Constitutional Orders [November 1, 1981 & October 27m1979], the framers had inserted special provisions with stipulated procedures as they affect (i) ...Alterations to the Constitution; and (ii) ...Supreme Court Order” [ANU 1967]. An overly ambitious Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, desiring a “...Republic Constitution” attempted to rid the nation of the Monarchy. He could not achieve this objective through the “ ...constitutionally stipulated “...Two –thirds majority of Members of the House of Assembly, as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition had  strenuously objected and influenced the citizens against the move. Forced to resort to “...Constitutional Referendum,” through this process, the people flatly rejected the ambitious political move. [Wikipedia: November 25, 2009].

EXISTING LAWS

Consequent upon the dynamic nature of society, the Constitution also anticipates that other functions and duties may also be performed by the Supervisor of Elections. These may be considered through “...Parliamentary PRESCRIPTION or stipulated under any other Law.  These might be supported by the provisions in Schedule 2 to the Order that speaks to “...EXISTING LAWS.” Section 2 states “...The Existing Laws shall, as from November 1, 1981, be construed with such Modifications; ...Adaptations; ...Qualifications; and ...Exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the ...Constitution and the Supreme Court Order of 1967.”

TINKERING WITH EXISTING LAWS

While the “...Dynamic Evolution of Society” was factored, conversely, “...Due to the unpredictable nature and impulsive behavior of man,” framers of the Constitution had anticipated human behaviors smacked of adventurism and irrationality. For instance, without notice, ambitious men and women in the Executive could conjure up an initiative overnight to “...Tinker with Existing Laws.” Then if the ends justify the means,” rushed it in to the Legislature through egregious “...Bills of Amendments” for legalization of “...PRESCRIPTIONS.” In “...non-constitutional matters,” all that is needed for passage of a Bill is a “...Simple Majority” of the supporting members present. Framers of the Constitution anticipated these possibilities.

TINKERED AMENDMENTS

Instructively, Section 67 (2) of the Constitution provides the basis for such anticipation. It states thus, “...The Supervisor of Elections SHALL have and exercise (i) ...Such functions and (iii)  ...Duties as may be prescribed by Law.” In other words, while the Constitution recognizes “...functions and duties already provided by Law.” Mind-bogglingly, even with these provisions, the Attorney General had cheekily urged his opponent to “...Mount legal challenges,” in which the Judiciary shall have been required to make determinations respecting the “...constitutionality” of the Amendmentsto the Representation of the People Act No. 12 of 2011, and specifically as they affect the “...powers, functions and role of the Supervisor of Elections “...as provided by Law” [No. 17 of 2001] and protected by the Constitution [1981].

CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERATIONS

In “...Altering any of the provisions of the Constitution,” Section 47 stipulates the procedures to be followed. Thus, as it affects passage of a “...Bill for Constitutional Alterations,” the Section expressly states there “...There shall be Two-Thirds of the membership of the House.” Thus, in the “...Seventeen-member House,” it will require at least “...Twelve sitting Members” for the passage of such “...BILL” for the intended Alterations.” This necessarily means voting by Members on opposite sides of the House. Currently, within the OECS, a two-thirds majority might be possible only in the Spice Isle of Grenada. Following the electoral defeat of the “...Tilman Thomas administration,” Grenadian Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell and his grouping, has captured the fifteen- member parliamentary seat [February, 13, 2013].  Notwithstanding, this may still need consensus from the Grenadian people for “...Constitutional Reform” through a “...Constitutional Referendum.”

BAD POLICY DECISIONS

Save and except it was officially refuted, critics have argued that “...reasons of obscurity,” may have been responsible for the “...irrational conceptualization and detrimental implementation of those failed policies, the result of “...Bad Policy Decisions.” In fact, in the “...APCL/APUA Judgment,” the London “...Privy Council speaks to questionable advice.” Consequent upon his legal representations in the former case, the Privy Council concluded that the Honourable Attorney General may have misdirected himself, then “...knowingly and unwittingly; ...ill-advisedly or coercively” pursued with litigious proceedings against one of the nation’s better known conglomerates.

CASES ON POINT

In support of this contention, there are two particular cases make the point. Firstly, there was the “...Antigua Power Company Limited (APCL) and the Antigua Public Utilities Authority (APUA)” [PC Appeal: No. 0063 of 2013]. Secondly, there is the Claim between the Honourable Bryant Lester Bird, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and the Attorney General and the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC) [ANUHCV2012/0164]. From the unfavorable Decisions, though reasonable inferences may have been drawn that “...Good Legal Advice” may have been rendered to the referenced entities, either by the Ministry of Legal Affairs or agency attorneys, such inferences may also have been drawn that for reasons of saving face, “...Good Legal Advice” by Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC, may have been deliberately ignored.

OUTSIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

When it appeared that armed Law enforcement personnel had trespassed “...Outside the realm of Criminal Jurisdiction,” the Law Lords critically observed “...It appears from the affidavit evidence that this happened on the advice of the Attorney General” [Para 26: PC APPL: No. 0063 of 2013]. It was the experience in Law enforcement that (i) “...Bad advice” had led to (ii) “...Bad Decisions and (iii) “...Bad Police Actions.” These have often proved either embarrassing or costly. The Privy Council has provided future guidance to Law enforcement administrators [Para. 52]. Hence, they had referred to the historic case of “...R v Raymond Blackburn, Metropolitan Police Commissioner” [2 QB: 118, 136: 1968].

CONCLUSION

Clearly, framers of the Constitution NEVER INTENDED that the “...functions, powers and duties” of the Supervisor of Elections to be reduced and/or transferred to persons not recognized by the Constitution. If overnight legislatorswere to table a Bill to amend the Public Order Act Chapter 357, to relieve the Commissioner of Police of powers to “...Grant permits for public meeting,” then transferring such powers to his Deputy, will not only be seen as making “...Mockery of the Law,” but perhaps the Deputy might need to convey all a sundry to the “...Clare Vue Psychiatric Hospital.” Lest thoughts be focused wrongly, there was no doubt that Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP was in control of his mental faculties, when the ill-fated legislative measures were considered, tabled, debated and passed. There was no doubt that in “...Hindsight” he may have been looking at the measures differently. If there was any evidence of such “...Hindsight Thinking,” it might be discerned from this modest quote “...The Judge’s ruling is reasoned and I think one can very ‘EASILY FOLLOW’ the reasoning of the Court” [Observer: November 11, 2013]. However, an Attorney General functioning under environmental pressure, such “...FOLLOWING” was never very easy.” Thus, for Attorney General, Honourable Justin L. Simon, he may have been inescapably “...Trapped Between a Rock and a Hard Place.”

Hits: 2185

7 Comments In This Article   

HEADER   

RE: AG- Between A Rock and A Hard Place

#7 Time to pay » 2013-11-18 12:01

SO they say ... People who cannot do teach.. Simon not even that you can do right. Simon really Law is something you cannot do well at all.. Time for you go get out of the light.. Look you already put Lovell into all types of problems teaching him case law that cannot work...! What are you really doing at the WTO...? Boy you need to step down .. Go sit on a good beach.. like HMB and think of what you did not do right at all...! You are just costing the Tax payer to much...! Time to go ..! :cry:
1
0
+
−

Time to pay

agree with Skyewill

#6 jeb » 2013-11-13 15:13

I am taking from the final paragraph that the author’s opinion is that Justin Simon most likely really was stuck between a rock and hard place. In order to appease his ill-advised do as I say power obsessed boss, he knowingly (in this case) took on a wrong and strong stance. I know that there have not been any wins for the AG but on listening several times to the 2011recording on Fire and Steel the quote about protesting too much came to mind…it sounded to me as if with this constitutional issue he was actually pushing for the challenge by being confrontational on something that he had to know was wrong…if this is the case it is very sad that an Attorney General cannot be independent from the dictates of party ignorance…Power really does corrupt and blind people. If Justin Simon possessed the testicular fortitude to come out on the side of right versus wrong on just one occasion he might have gained back some of the respect he has lost in the ongoing expensive, to the public, succession of losses and failures attributed to his tenure as AG.
2
0
+
−

jeb

skyewill

#5 guess who » 2013-11-13 14:30

skyewill, brethren i see you preaching well these days, hopefully persons who need to are listening. Heard last night the same minister you talked to, has stated that he does not care if he loses the next election. He points out that since he has won twice he is now entitled to his full pension for life. We need to look at putting rules in place to prevent that kind of ego.

Anyway the AG then (after the judgement) continues with bad logic, by opining that the list is legal because it was done under the direction of ABEC. He does not seem to get that his argument then (continues) makes the SOE unnecessary which is contrary to the judgement. Its time for the AG to take a long vacation
3
0
+
−

guess who

@ hmmmm - I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday inn Express

#4 skyewill » 2013-11-13 12:54

A lot of people thinks I am against UPP, I am not. I am just against the way they walk around behaving as if the rest of us is stupid and or crazy. The last minister That TALKED AT ME said that they were told that all Mount St. Johns needed to open was 6 million dollars, I could not get a word in edgewise. Anyone with commonsense knows that 6 million will not even cover the ER. It is logic like this that's killing us and instead of saying WE WERE WRONG he turned to rationalizations. THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT and all of them always on the same page, not one have the testicles to question anything with the exception of CIP and you see what happened to those that have an opinion of their own. Those with testicles are CASTRATED. Those without testicles return to there vomit and eat it up. I am an observer and I notice a lot of scared people, panicky, praying to GOD that they don't ** of the bosses at whose pleasure they serve. So they go along to get along. The AG is afraid to speak the truth for fear of getting kicked off the gravy train. I am convinced HE KNOWS THE REAL DEAL.
6
0
+
−

skyewill

RE: AG- Between A Rock and A Hard Place

#3 Time to pay » 2013-11-13 12:50

ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE SKYEWILL IS ON POINT... WHAT TYPE OF LAW DID SIMON'S GO TO SCHOOL FOR.. ? ANYONE KNOW?? ALSO WHERE DID HE GO? FOR LOOK AT THE HMB MATTER... ? COSTING US MILLIONS IN INTEREST AND NOW THAT LOVELL NEEDS A GOOD LAWYER.. !!!!! YES A REAL GOOD ONE TO KEEP HIM OUT OF JAIL .. SIMON'S HAS STEPPED DOWN.. CLEARLY PUSHING LOVELL UNDER THE BUS...!

FOR SAMION'S BAD ACT OF LETTING THE HMB CASE DRAG ON FOR YEARS IS COSTING US TAX PAYERS MILLIONS IN INTEREST SET BY THE COURT AT 10.25% A YEAR. LOVELL HAS SIGNED THE WARENT TO PAY THIS AMOUNT NOW IN FULL. SO CLEARLY HE HAS THE CASH TO DO SO OR HE WILL BE CHARGED WITH FRUAD...! BUT SIMON'S KNOWS ALL THIS...!! HOWEVER IS LOVELL AWARE OF IS REAL UP COMING PROBLEMS? ANYWAY SIMON'S HAS RUN TO HIGH GROUND.. LEAVING LOVELL IN THE THICK OF THE PROBLEMS...! NICE GUY YOU ARE SIMON'S... HAY LOVELL YOU GOT A NEW LAWYER YET..? :lol:
2
0
+
−

Time to pay

RE: AG- Between A Rock and A Hard Place

#2 hmmmm » 2013-11-13 08:45

@ Skyewill , you are so correct; always on the ball. Keep it up.
7
0
+
−

hmmmm

Or was there?

#1 Skyewill » 2013-11-13 04:49

There was no doubt that Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC MP was in control of his mental faculties, when the ill-fated legislative measures were considered, tabled, debated and passed. - This is why separation's of powers is so important. And if the GG, one of the best lawyers in Antigua & Barbuda can make such mis-judgments and be considered sane, then the next question would be are these errors done on purpose and is the accusations of gerrymandering true? Is all this interferences with ABEC designed to manipulate the electoral process? The opposition has done a good job protecting the constitution in this case. Birds expertise on this and other subject matters is reason for his relevance in government in this developing nation. So I ask, WHAT'S NEXT another wider deeper river to cross?
9
1
+
−

Skyewill

Add comment

Mr. Rawlston Pompey

 Mr. Rawlston Pompey

 

 

 

 

 

Follow us on Facebook

Spotlight on Education

Previous Next
Govt to give Two Uniforms
Antigua St. John's - Minister of Education Dr Jacqui Quinn-Leandro has confirmed...  Read more

Latest Opinions by Rawlston Pompey

App

Android LogoDownload Caribarena's Android App Click To Download

Find us on Twitter!