The Tribune

THE government has won the right to demolish a grand total of two shanty town homes. Two. Not two hundred. Not two thousand. Just two.

This is the outcome of the Supreme Court case, in which the government had sought a court order for the demolition of more than 260 shanty town structures in New Providence and Abaco.

As a success rate, two out of 260 is hardly anything to sing about.

One wonders how much time and money went into producing such an outcome and whether it might not have been cheaper in the end to buy a whole new property for each of the evictees.

Chief Justice Ian Winder, in his ruling, leaned heavily on two elements in his decision – first, that while it was clear that orders to stop construction had been ignored that it must be shown that someone had known about those orders for action to be taken against them.

Perhaps more crucial is the second element, that he was not satisfied that proper notice was given to residents in those areas. He could not find adequate evidence that anyone other than those involved in the court case had proper notice.

That is a staggering indictment of the inefficiency of the process – that the failure to properly notify people of the possibility of demolition could result in all but two properties being allowed to stand.

Government officials were unsurprisingly slow yesterday to claim victory – with both Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis and Works Minister Alfred Sears they had yet to see the ruling.

But after all the talk of action against shanty towns, after all the pledges to deal with the issue, for the legal process to deliver the possibility of demolishing just two structures seems to have been a staggering waste of time, money and energy by all concerned.

It will be interesting indeed to see what the government response to this will be – will there be a new effort to demolish those properties? Will that effort properly notify those involved? Or will we end up in court again with flaws in the process exposed and another sizeable legal bill to be paid?

The Chief Justice has given 45 days for the people in those two homes to have them removed – but at the rate that shanty towns sometimes seem to pop up, it seems likely that in 45 days’ time, while there may be two fewer, there will likely be plenty more elsewhere.

The lesson to learn here should of course to ensure that legal processes are followed properly to ensure they do not undermine the action if it is challenged in court – as is likely.

But that seems to be a lesson we seldom learn.

The previous administration had a habit of losing case after case at court, especially in high-profile immigration issues. And now here the government may be able to claim the most modest of wins, but in truth it is a greater win for the residents in hundreds of properties that will not be demolished after this ruling.

Where does that leave us? With a problem over shanty towns that remains unresolved. And whatever side of the immigration debate you might be on, shanty towns are a problem – they can be an issue for fire safety, with close proximity of buildings proving a risk, they can prove a danger in hurricane season, as we so terribly saw during Hurricane Dorian, and they can be a health risk, without proper utilities being connected and questions over sanitation and water supplies.

All these are issues that need to be dealt with regardless of where one stands over immigration – and regardless of the fact that previous surveys have shown 80 percent of shanty town residents have some form of legal status to live in The Bahamas.

So where next? We shall wait to see what the government says after this case – but we doubt many will claim it as a victory.