CATEGORY:COMMENTARY ---------------------- INSIDE GRENADA SUNDAY September 30,2007 by Lloyd Noel According to the Special Legal Advisor to the Attorney General and Government of Grenada, Mr. Hugh Wildman, not only are the Political Lawyers in Grenada instructing Lawyers in the U.S.A. to bring Cases against the top two politicians in Grenada - the Prime Minister and his deputy Minister Bowen - but someone with dodgy fingers within the Judiciary, or the Judicial Administration of the OECS Supreme Court, is doing all in his/her power to frustrate the lawful action of the Government of Grenada. In the Court of Appeal (C/A) last week in St. George’s, three matters involving the Government of Grenada and in which Wildman has been ever-present - were thrown out of Court and another Thousand dollars added to Costs owing to Peter David. In the ludicrous and abuse of the Court’s process, in the “Richmond Hill (13) Thirteen” re-sentencing case - in which the Crown Counsel in the Attorney General’s department had written to the Registrar in August, informing him that the Government was not proceeding with the frivolous and nonsensical application to the C/A, for leave to Appeal against the decision of Justice Belle when he refused to withdraw from the case - the matter came up before the Court and was thrown out as the load of rubbish it really was. Costs were not awarded against the Government because Notice of the withdrawal was given in advance to the Respondents/Defendants. But in the Peter David matter brought by Wildman on behalf of the Attorney General - in which he was claiming that Peter’s election to sit in Parliament was not valid, because he was a Canadian Citizen - the Court again threw it out and awarded $1000.00 Costs, even though Wildman was saying he withdrawing the Application, when faced with the absurdity of his premature application seeking leave to appeal a decision that he himself has been saying was not yet handed down by the Court of Appeal. He found himself in the same legal rat trap he had created from the beginning of this Case, when he filed an ordinary claim form - rather than an Election Petition as laid down by Law - and was expecting to achieve the same result as provided for in Election Petitions that must be brought to Court within a specified period. And he confounded the matter even further when, after Justice Benjamin had ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the Case, because Wildman had not complied with the Law - as laid down in the Constitution and the Representation of the people Act of 1993 - he applied for leave to Appeal because he said that Ruling was Interlocutory (in advance of the full hearing). The Defence responded that there was no appeal for an Interlocutory ruling, it had to be a final ruling according to the Constitution - in matters pertaining to the validity of any Member of Parliament or Senator to sit in Parliament. The Judge had to agree with the Defence, so Wildman went to the Court of Appeal (one Judge) and there he changed his opinion and submitted that it was a final ruling - for which he did not need any leave, so the matter could have proceeded to the full Court of Appeal. For that hearing he brought in a Jamaican Q.C. to lead the argument - but before any of them could get off the ground, the Defence submitted that there was no proper Appeal before the Court; because the papers filed by Wildman and his team in the Attorney General’s office, were all in connection with the leave application and no other papers were filed in connection with the Appeal per se. The matter was dismissed with costs of $5000.00; Costs are now around $25,000.00. What is now before the Court of Appeal was another application to file the actual Appeal out of time, because the time for filing the same had long expired with all those useless leave applications which were all un-necessary. And the question or contention now in issue, is whether when that leave to Appeal out of time was argued and granted, full arguments were heard from both sides on the substantive Appeal, and only a decision is pending; or whether the Registrar has to conduct Case Management and issue directions, as the Court of Appeal ordered some months ago. There certainly has not been any final decision from the Court of Appeal, and when there is, the Constitution lays down that there is no Appeal to the Privy Council from matters dealing with the validity of M.P’s to sit in Parliament. End of Case. The other matter that was thrown out by the Court of Appeal last week, was the Appeal brought by the one-man Commissioner against the Justice Baptiste decision, which held that Commissioner Cheltenham’s ruling not to grant the Leader of the Opposition audience during the taking of evidence for the one week in June two years ago - was wrong in Law. As the World now know, the Commissioner resumed the Inquiry in August, never even informed the Leader of the Opposition of the resumption, but when Counsel appeared after hearing the news on T/V - the said Commissioner brushed aside the Court’s ruling, took two more witnesses and closed the Inquiry . He promised to submit his report by the end of September to the Governor General, but he has already informed the public that he found no evidence implicating the Prime Minister. The Commissioner was mandated to Inquire into the Prime Minister’s statement - that he received about $15,000.00 U.S. from Con-man Resteiner at his home in Switzerland at the material time, and that sum was repayment for expenses the Prime Minister had incurred for his trip to Europe and the Middle East. The Commissioner called no witnesses to testify about that statement, not even the Prime Minister himself - unless it can be argued that Miss Coutain was such a witness, and she categorically denied that the Prime Minister received that sum, or any other sum from Resteiner on the occasion in question. It will therefore be interesting to see the Commissioner’s report on that Term of Reference, among others. But Counsel for the Opposition Leader, Elliot Motley Q.C., has already given public notice that the said report will be challenged when published.And the Commissioner was represented in the Court of Appeal, by experienced and expensive Queen’s Counsel from Barbados, Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye - and am sure he did not travel to Grenada, accommodated and had his services paid for by the Barbadian Government. So more of the people’s money still spending in the Court House. Then amidst all that level of chaos and confusion and wasteful spending, not to mention the embarrassment to the Government and its legal team - we had the Special Legal Advisor, Wildman, calling his press conference and adding gross insult to the already over-whelming Legal incompetence, brought about by the frivolous and vexatious Court documents and proceedings filed by his team. That chap publicly accused the members of the Judiciary, from the Chief Justice downwards, with deliberately using their grubby hands in the legal process involving the Attorney General and Peter David to protect and favour Peter. The offensive display was so despicable, that it moved the usually reserved and very tolerant Chief Justice, Sir Brian Alleyne, to himself make a public response to the press in which he termed Wildman’s outburst as reckless. I cannot understand why the Chief Justice stopped short of having Wildman brought before the bench in open Court - to answer a charge of Contempt, because his behaviour was nothing less than disgraceful and open disrespect and disregard for the Court and the Judges, and he deserves to be disciplined. To allow such outrageous behaviour to go without more is to give the impression that something is really remiss and therefore the authority hands are tied. There is no need to tell Mr. Wildman he can go to the Privy Council when he is not satisfied with a decision - he knows that only too well, because he took the very (JLSC) Judicial and Legal Services Commission, headed by the same Chief Justice, to the Privy Council in the matter of its refusal to recommend his appointment as Attorney General of Grenada and he was thrown out of Court in record time. So what message is being sent to all those up and coming Young Lawyers, who are waiting for the opportunity to enter the centre stage? The precedent is itself un-acceptable, and needs to be re-visited and corrected. We are seeing the breakdown and abandonment of standards that we once took for granted in these Isles, and which are the norm in societies all around us. The only way that diabolical trend can be curtailed, is for those who have the authority and are part and parcel of the systems in place - to take the bull by the horns, as it were, and turn it around to face the straight and narrow pathway, that can lead us back to the road map of honesty, integrity, decency, and respect for people’s rights and the rule of Law. Too many of those in authority - even though they are not personally committing the evil actions, but they are liable by association and collective responsibility - they are abdicating their responsibility, and giving credence and false merit to the evil doers who will surely bring them all down to the gutter. And in the meantime we seem to be standing idly by and looking on, as the men and women of tomorrow - the younger ones - with no leadership and example to follow and emulate, take the wrong roads and self-destruct not only their bodies, but all those golden opportunities that are blowing in the wind out there, waiting to be taken with both hands and move on into a much brighter tomorrow. The chaos and confusion and wasted funds surrounding our public affairs in these parts, go ahead un-abated while so many of our people continue to suffer in silence to make ends meet - but time is the greatest healer. And last week the Caribbean watched in silence and sorrow, as the late Sir John Compton was laid to rest in St. Lucia. The Ceremony was a fitting and very moving spectacle, and the local Calypsonian sealed it all with his tribute— “I come from the Island of Sir John” - may his soul rest in peace.