CATEGORY:COMMENTARY ------------------------- By Lloyd Noel (Attorney-at-paw) Inside Grenada contributor Tuesday 13 February,2007 THE OLD FOLKS used to say “if you have patience you go see ants belly;” while our late Prime Minister Herbert Blaize put it another way, when he said that .... “what goes around, comes around.” In either statement the inference is, that when anyone, or group of persons take any action, or behave towards others with scant regard for their feelings, or with callousness; the day will surely come when the in-sensitivity, the bad faith, and the low-down-shoddy treatment will receive its due returns. It is only a matter of time. For all those of us who felt let down by the Government, when it treated our long-standing friends from Taiwan with such utter dis-regard and in-gratitude, by virtually booting them out of Grenada in 2005 - because those Mainland Chinese were promising a new and improved National Stadium, as the bait to oust Taiwan from Grenada. We may have been thinking even sub-consciously, that someday what went around then will come around.I doubt, however, that anyone ever thought it would have come around so quickly, and even more so dramatically - as the “Faux Pas” that took place at the very Stadium (the bait) on Saturday third February. Although it should not have surprised those Mainland Chinese too much, because their very Ambassador from Trinidad, as well as a delegation from the Mainland - invited to Grenada by the then Opposition Leader, Michael Baptiste - and a third group that came to Grenada just before Elections in November, 2003, were all treated very shabbily by this same Government and thrown out of the Island as prohibited aliens - who were not welcome here. Of course the Chinese regained a little face, when they invited an NDC delegation to visit Beijing soon after they had re-opened diplomatic relations with Grenada in 2005 - because as all sides know only too well, the relationship between NDC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), was in existence during the time NNP was being financially supported by the Taiwanese - and the same NNP had no time for China. According to the political grapevine news, the same Chinese again showed their disgust and dis-pleasure with the NNP Government, after the Saturday “Boo-Boo” at the Stadium - when they failed to show up at a reception for Foreign Diplomats, which the Government held at the Grenadian by Rex Resort on the Monday following. But then again, why all the fuss and aggravated insult and broken hearts – by the Chinese and the Prime Minister over the Anthem mix-up? The Mainland powers-that-be have always maintained and vociferously claimed, that the few break-away Chinese living on Taiwan - are just an insignificant little group of renegades, who are being naughty and dis-obedient to the motherland - because there is only ONE China.And our Government Ministers have also maintained that they are fully in support of the “One China Policy.” So what does it matter, which Anthem was given to the un-fairly victimized Bandleader to play - either one is supportive of the same One China? On the other hand, the action of the powers-that-be clearly highlights the absence of equity and equality before the law. When the Prime Minister and his Deputy were accused of grave and serious wrong-doing - they not only remained on the job, and carried on as though nothing had been said, but they openly criticized their accusers and stifled comment by threatening the publishers. In other words, there are one set of laws and rules and regulations for the high and mighty - and a quite different and more stringent set, for the lowly and meek and humble. But as I said before, the longest day must come to an end. And before the Anthem “Boo-Boo” at the Stadium, just a few days in advance of that level of international let down, we had the breaking news of the over Sixty Millions E.C.C. Dollars our Government had borrowed from the “Ex-Im Bank” in Taipei - and from all available evidence no Parliamentary approval had been obtained for so doing. And what is perhaps much worse - since the monies were paid into a Grenada Account in New York, under whose signatures for withdrawals we are still investigating - there is not yet any available evidence, whether or not the borrowed sums did come into the Treasury in Grenada. And if any portion of those Millions did come, we are in total darkness as to what Projects they were in fact spent on; because from all conflicting statements by the Ministers responsible, it is very clear that no part of those sums was spent on the Stadium - for which purpose more than half was borrowed. Statements were made by Cabinet Ministers about those monies - even as recently as earlier this year by the Minister responsible for Finance.The statements so made were as clear as mud, after a hurricane and rain storm. So in the absence of any Accountability or Transparency - with the management of the people’s monies, borrowed in their names for their Islands development - should not there be very urgent investigations into the mystery? When we were just a Colony - with Associated Statehood with England, the “huge sum of $3500.00 E.C.” was the subject of a “Squandermania” investigation against Eric Gairy as Premier. To-day we are so Independent, and should be so proud of that status according to our Leaders - and those same Leaders doing their own dam thing with impunity; and all the Ministers mum, and those hangers-on at the cocktails, and receptions, and whatever else making the rounds, can see nothing wrong that should be investigated. But a poor hardworking little Policeman, as the conductor of the Police band, is suspended and transferred and made out as a number one con-man - because the wrong Anthem was played at the handing-over ceremony of a “Key” to the National Stadium. And even the suspension may not be legal. And that - “Independent-Grenada-style” - is true justice, and adherence to the Rule of Law, and democracy in the Twenty-first Century. Grenadians, may God Bless you, and someday soon wake you up from your slumber, because if you continue sleeping for very much longer - there will be very little left to recover. And after Twenty-three years and three months since the happenings of October, 1983, Grenada is again making breaking news - in the legal/constitutional areas of our Independence within the Commonwealth - and in particular within CARICOM in the Caribbean setting. The long-standing and internationally recognized case, of the “Grenada Seventeen” at Richmond Hill Prison, received a new lease of life in the Privy Council Judgment, delivered by the Law Lords in London on the very significant date of February 7th 2007. And not only is the 7th February our Independence Anniversary, of Thirty-three years since gaining our so -called Independence from Britain - but the case itself was described by Lord Bingham, during the course of the Appeal hearing as “probably the most important case from the Caribbean in the last three decades.” The principle that they are entitled to be re-sentenced will have widespread implications in other jurisdictions - but especially in the OECS, where there are dozens of convicted persons for Murder in the past Thirty years. The number of persons who petitioned the Privy Council was in fact Thirteen (13) of the original Seventeen (17). And that was so, because Three of those were convicted for Manslaughter and having served their Thirty (30) years jail sentences - which were reduced to Twenty (20) years because of relief for good behaviour and progress made in Prison over the years - they were released last December, 2006. Of the other Fourteen (14), Mrs. Phyllis Coard has been on compassionate sick leave and resident in Jamaica since 2001, undergoing treatment for Cancer. That left the remaining Thirteen persons who petitioned the Privy Council for relief on many grounds, but the one ground which succeeded was that the sentences of Death passed on all the Fourteen were illegal or unlawful. And because the sentences were unlawful, the subsequent sentence of Life Imprisonment, imposed by the Governor General’s Warrant - with the condition that they spend the rest of their natural lives in Prison - those “sentences” were also unlawful. The Privy Council, therefore, quashed the Death Sentences, as well as the Life Sentences, because they were all invalid and unconstitutional.The Privy Council also ordered that they all be re-sentenced, “taking into account the progress made by the Appellants during their time in Prison;” and the cases should be remitted to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the sentencing, in accordance with the construction of Section 230 of the Criminal Code of Grenada. The Privy Council recognized and stated that this was “no Ordinary case.”And in giving their reasons for refusing to accept the argument of the English Q.C., who was representing the Government of Grenada, they said.... “Fifthly, and perhaps most important, is the highly unusual circumstance that, for obvious reasons, the question of the Appellants’ fate is so politically charged that it is hardly reasonable to expect any Government of Grenada, even Twenty-three (23) years after the tragic events of October 1983, to take an objective view of the matter. In their Lordships opinion that makes it all the more important that the determination of the appropriate sentence for the Appellants, taking into account such progress as they have made in Prison, should be the subject of a Judicial determination.” The cases of those Thirteen persons brought out some very interesting twists, and historical turn arounds that cannot, and must not, be overlooked. The Judge who sentenced the Grenada Fourteen (14) to Death in December 1986, was justice Denis Byron - as he then was - and he was following the Law, as it then was. The case that changed the Law, on the issue of the Mandatory Death Penalty for Murder, was Hughes and Spence Vs. The Queen from St. Lucia in April, 2001. The Court of Appeal, then headed by Chief Justice Denis Byron, held that the Mandatory Death Penalty was an “inhuman or degrading punishment” and therefore unconstitutional. That Case and Court apply to all the OECS Jurisdictions since we all have similar Constitutions. The Privy Council upheld that Court of Appeal decision in March 2002, and the Law was thereby changed for all times - dating back to the origin of our Written Constitutions. The Grenada Fourteen (14) filed their Constitutional Motion in September 2002, and it was heard in 2004, by Justice Kenneth Benjamin. He held among other things, that the Sentence of Death passed in 1986 was un-lawful, and the Appellants must be brought back before a High Court Judge for re-sentencing. The Government of Grenada appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal, but gave Leave to the Appellants to Petition the Privy Council.The result of that Petition was handed down on our Independence Anniversary on 7th February, 2007. When anyone wishes to take the Privy Council to task for their decision - just remember that those Law Lords in London were upholding Chief Justice Byron’s Judgment in 2001, and Justice Benjamin’s Judgment in 2004, and not doing their own thing as it were. This therefore emphasizes the facts - that we do have Eminent and wise Judges in the Caribbean, who can sit on our Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) with distinction. It is just that as a Region we are not quite ready to take on the full mantle of a Final Court of Appeal; and this Judgment clearly demonstrates, that we still need the wiser and far more independent and experienced older heads in far-away London, to steer the Judicial ship for a while yet. And talking about an Independent Judiciary - I understand that moves are afoot to ensure, that Atg. Chief Justice Brian Alleyne’s name be put back on the list of candidates for the substantive post, when the OECS heads meet again to select a Chief Justice. His name was removed because Grenada was not in favour of his appointment, although he has been acting for over Two years.