PM barking up wrong tree

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The prime minister, addressing Parliament on Tuesday, was obviously upset by the fact that the courts seem to be entertaining high legal costs filed by lawyers in election petition matters recently decided in the courts. He has guns pointed at intervening to limit those costs, so that litigants can afford to take their matters to court. Two cheers to you, prime minister, for thinking of the 'poor litigant' at this time, but, respectfully, you are barking up the wrong tree. As a leader, we expect you to demand a high level of what Grandma used to say to me - "speak the truth and speak it ever, cost you what it may" - from your parliamentarians. While taking her oath of office a second time, Miss Shahine Robinson, as a sitting parliamentarian, left the country and swore allegiance to the United States (US) government. Let us bear in mind that, in her locally taken oaths as a Parliamentarian, on at least four occasions, she swore that she would "... in all things be true and faithful ..."

Mr Prime Minister, why is it that you have allowed Miss Robinson - who misled the country that she was not a citizen of the US, and in defiance of clear provisions of the highest law of the land - to get herself nominated and elected to the House as our representative? She was slapped with indemnity costs designed to punish litigants whose conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of the courts. The judge did make that finding, and Miss Robinson threw in the towel when faced with the indisputable fact that she swore allegiance to a foreign state while sitting in our Parliament.

Listening to the prime minister raging - and cheered on by those who surround him - leaves me feeling that he is just not getting it. We, the people, feel that we deserve honest representatives. Can you explain, sir, why, notwithstanding her embarrassing admission in the election petition matter, you have found Miss Robinson a worthy candidate of your party to seek re-election? What do you think young people who wish to serve think about your acceptance of her and the fact that you have elected to take the lawyers to task, rather than Miss Robinson, for misleading us? What do you think of the salary paid to her by the people and the laws voted on by her while she sat as an unqualified member of the honourable House?

encroachment of the legislature

And, on another related note, I find under your stewardship, that the principle of separation of power has been consistently eroded by the encroachment of the legislature on the judiciary, resulting in the rights of the citizenry being repeatedly curtailed. Judges' bail decisions are now appealable; they are estopped from considering bail for a period of time, and Parliament has dictated to our judges the minimum sentence they can impose in gun-related matters. I detected an undertone in your speech to the house on Tuesday, that you were issuing a threat to intervene, yet again.

This time, it is with respect to the court-managed costs. It is very worrying when you, in opening the door yet again to muzzle the judiciary, have seemingly disassociated yourself from those of us whom you said, and I quote "... believe that Parliament must not put any strictures on court." Once more, you seem prepared to tell the judiciary how to deal with the fruits of judgment to which a successful litigant is entitled, against a loser who abused the process of the court and swore to a falsehood to prolong her unconstitutional stay in our Parliament.

I am, etc.,

Bert S. Samuels

Attorney-at-Law

bert.samuels@gmail.com