The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Several weeks ago I was interviewed on the Steve McKinney show. It was a wide-ranging interview. Among other things, the performance of the present government, and in particular, the performance of the Hon Carl Bethel, QC, was discussed.

It concerned the Government being sued for over $186m for alleged breach of contract and the way it is being handled. I said that the Hon Carl Bethel, QC. should resign or be fired, and pointed out that in any civilised country he would have been long gone.

Never once did I mention my brother’s case. Even I, who am not a lawyer, much less a QC, knows that the details of any case before the courts are not supposed to be discussed outside the court. I always understood that to do so would be contempt of court.

But the Hon Carl Bethel, QC, in all his glory and might has now done this on two occasions, first in the Smith or Gibson case and now in my brother’s case. And oddly enough, the Attorney General was not brought before the court and charged with contempt.

I do admit, however, it was my brother’s case that brought me to investigate what was going on. On investigation, I found a large, rotten can of worms, and that can of worms showed that the Government is being sued for more than $186m for contracts which, it is claimed, they have refused to pay.

I could not believe it but was told by three different people that the Attorney General told them that he would squeeze them and force them to sue and then have the case stretched out for five years. The business, which held a claim against the government, would be overwhelmed by legal fees, etc and eventually be brought to its knees.

True? It seems to be. Just read the Kingman Ingraham case, which has recently been published in The Tribune.

Some people say that this is the Attorney General’s way of negotiating. Negotiating? I would call that blackmail or extortion. I’ll give you examples of extortion/blackmail, negotiating, and you can be the judge.

The first example is of a person who walks into a grocery store, sees an apple on the shelf and a sign that says $10.00. The person picks it up, eats it and says to the store manager: “I’m only going to pay you $5.00 for this”. When the store manager objects, the person says: “If you don’t like it take me to court and furthermore, I’ll see that your licence to sell groceries is taken from you”. Faced with large legal fees and being put out of business, the store manager relents and accepts the $5.00.

Is this extortion/blackmail, or negotiating? I say extortion/blackmail. You be the judge!

The second example is of a person who walks into a grocery store, sees an apple on the shelf and a sign that says $10.00. The person picks it up, eats it and says to the store manager: “I liked the apple, would you give a 10% discount if I bought 50 apples from you?” The store manager says: “I will only give you a 5% discount”. “What about 7%”, says the person? “OK,” says the store manager, “it’s a deal”.

Is this extortion/blackmail or negotiating? I say negotiating. You be the judge.

Which scenario fits the case of the $186m?

It is curious to note that in the statement the Attorney General, The Hon Carl Bethel QC, made in my brother’s case, and the Ingraham case, was that he had been “advised by lawyers” that there was no case.

Let me remind this brilliant QC that the boss always takes the blame. After all, the final decision is his. He’s a QC; he should know better. Sometimes I think he must have gotten his QC in a grab bag.

If he is so certain of his decisions, he would be anxious that the cases were brought to court immediately.

I was always taught to believe that the Court, not the Attorney General, made the decision as to who was wrong and who was right.

But, I suppose, the Hon Carl Bethel, QC, will blame this tardiness on the Judges.

The Attorney General does not seem to be man enough to take the blame for something for which he is responsible.

Finally, a word to the Prime Minister; remember that Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here”, as he pointed to himself.

PIERRE V L DUPUCH

Former MP,

Nassau,

September 30, 2019.