EDITOR, The Tribune.
It was very interesting to hear that the Hon Prime Minister declined to reveal settlement amounts in actions settled by the government with members of the security forces because he did not want pending actions to be affected.
It is trite law that judgments and settlements are based on matters previously decided or in legal jargon, precedent. If there is a fear of revealing these figures, can it be assumed that they possibly exceeded figures adjudicated or agreed previously? Because we also know that bad precedents make bad law. To be clear, as the moneys were paid by us, the taxpayers, we are not satisfied with this inane excuse and we demand to know the figures.
Another disturbing aspect of this matter is that we were made aware that the legal firm of the Hon Minister of National Security, represented some if not all of the litigants, therefore can we be told if the briefs were turned over to other Counsel prior to settlement? If not,(and I state this in spite of having been accused of not knowing what I was talking about on a previous occasion,) I would suggest that the Hon Minister would find himself in a conflict of interest.
JEANNE THOMPSON
Nassau,
April 24, 2023.
Comments
birdiestrachan 1 year ago
Jeanne stop knitting ? Well the FNM Party should pay for their mean and malicious acts, calling witness together to seal lies, what did you have to say about that was it all right ? .
themessenger 1 year ago
Thank you Ms Thompson, although I seriously doubt you, or we the people, will ever receive a sensible answer to your questions. Birdie dear, don’t you understand that neither FNM nor PLP will be paying, it will be us taxpayers, yourself included, who will foot the bill.
birdiestrachan 1 year ago
The FNM party should pay what would have happened to them if they could not,afford good lawyers it was a very serious matter, some what like how those persons who were able to get their land back they had money they went to the privy counsel ,
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID