The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

WHILE the whole island seems to be in an uproar over the decision of Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson to issue a nolle prosequi in the case being brought against two Sandals Royal Bahamian executives by the BHMAWU, I will attempt to take what seems to be the road less taken and actually try to look at the matter objectively.

There is no doubt that emotions are running high, tempers are flaring and egos have been bruised, but what we should all remember is that the Attorney General is well within her rights to act independently and make decisions which, in her professional capacity, and with years of expertise and knowledge, she believes are in the best interest of the island’s legal system.

That the nolle took effect on the same day the workers at Sandals were terminated is what seems to have fuelled a lot of speculation  and unfounded accusations against the Attorney General. I will venture to say this is nothing but a mere coincidence because I refuse to believe that the Attorney General would make such a bold and blatant move knowing that almost every single Bahamian is keenly watching how these proceedings have been unfolding. Could it be that she just does not care about her office and maintaining its credibility?

Could it be that she is blatantly abandoning her job to further the interests of Sandals? I highly doubt it.

What I would like to know – and really I want someone to tell me – is the Attorney General mandated to share information regarding cases being brought before the court and decisions taken thereof?

The case that has been dismissed was not between Sandals and the government or any government official but was rather between the company and the BHMAWU, two non-governmental organisations.

Perhaps it was in her understanding of the many conflicts and potential conflicts of interest  surrounding this matter that the Attorney General acted independently and made her decision, without consulting and informing anyone aside from the Magistrate. Maybe, just maybe, her decision to not inform anyone was made to protect the integrity of the court system.

In any case, the Attorney General has made it clear that her decision to issue a nolle prosequi in this particular case between Sandals and the BHMAWU, where the latter have accused two Sandals executives of breaching the Industrial Relations Act and failing to negotiate an industrial agreement, was made with the knowledge that there were two other related matters before the court. One such matter involves Sandals challenging the validity of the very existence of the union and the other  is the union’s unfair dismissal action against Sandals.

As has been echoed by the Attorney General’s office and Sandals’ lawyer, litigants cannot initiate a matter in a lower court while the same or a similar matter is presently before a higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court.

So, is it that we are all now trained attorneys in a position to challenge this explanation? Are we really going to allow unions to bully us into thinking what they want us to think?

It is interesting that sources have turned the tables on the unions, accusing them of bringing this case against Sandals to force them to meet at the bargaining table.

As has been echoed in a recent Tribune article, if this is indeed true, it would represent a disturbing attempt to misuse the courts and justice system and again, provides even more explanation for why the Attorney General would act in the manner she did.

At the end of the day, the Attorney General  is qualified  to do her job and has been entrusted with the task of overseeing our legal system.

We are all free to have an opinion on her decision but we should refrain from making inflammatory accusations.

We should also remember, while we mouth off and sound off, that there is a reason why we do not hold the office of Attorney General and  Allyson Maynard Gibson does.

JEFF CARMICHEAL

Nassau,

September 29, 2016.