By RASHAD ROLLE
Tribune Senior Reporter
rrolle@tribunemedia.net
THE Court of Appeal granted the government leave yesterday to appeal a landmark citizenship ruling to the Privy Council, but did not rule on whether to stay the judgement.
Court of Appeal President Sir Michael Barnett said the court will adjourn the completion of the stay issue.
Attorney Wayne Munroe, who brought the case, did not oppose the government’s application for leave to the Privy Council. However, he argued that a stay of the ruling should be refused because the Court of Appeal, which affirmed Justice Ian Winder’s ruling, has issued no orders.
“In my view they cannot get a stay,” Mr Munroe told The Tribune last week.
“The court hasn’t ordered them to do anything. You go to the court and get a stay when there is an order from the court to do something. The court hasn’t ordered them to do anything so there’s nothing to stay. For that matter, the case is about these five children. The court hasn’t told them to do anything with regard to these five children. The court hasn’t told them to do anything, but people can now make a demand based on the court’s ruling.”
On June 21, the Court of Appeal affirmed Justice Winder’s ruling that children born out of wedlock in the Bahamas to Bahamian men are citizens at birth, regardless of the nationality of their mother. The decision reversed the longstanding view about the relevant constitutional provisions.
Since the ruling, people have visited the Parliamentary Registration Department demanding to be registered to vote, according to Attorney General Carl Bethel.
Mr Munroe has said the Court of Appeal’s ruling is the law of the land unless and until the Privy Council says otherwise.
In its application on Friday for leave to appeal the ruling and to stay the ruling, the Office of the Attorney General listed numerous grounds for appeal. It is thought if the ruling stands, however, it will have major implications for access to citizenship in The Bahamas and could affect the status of thousands of people.
Comments
tribanon 2 years, 9 months ago
Munroe is being disingenuous for mischievous political purposes and its frankly most unbecoming of him as a QC.
The affirmation ruling by the Court of Appeal of the original Supreme Court ruling was in substance a court order otherwise there would have been no need for the Court of Appeal to grant the government leave to appeal its ruling to the Privy Council.
The leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeal with no opposition from Munroe is in fact tantamount to a stay until such time the Privy Council has had an opportunity to hear and rule on the matter.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID