The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has struck down a $575,000 judgment issued by a retired Supreme Court justice nearly three years after she demitted office, declaring the decision unconstitutional and legally void.

The unanimous ruling, delivered yesterday, concluded that Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville had no authority to issue a ruling in August 2024, two years and eight months after she retired in December 2021. The case at the centre of the decision involved Dahene Nonord, a former immigration detainee, who had been awarded damages for constitutional violations and misfeasance in public office following a legal challenge against several government officials, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration.

In its ruling, the appellate panel emphasised that Article 96 of the Constitution clearly outlines the retirement framework for Supreme Court justices. Judges may serve until age 65 and, under special circumstances, may be extended to 67. Article 96(2) allows a temporary extension to complete pending matters, but only for a defined period and only while still officially holding office. Mrs Bowe-Darville’s extension ended on December 3, 2021, long before she delivered the judgment.

Justice Crane-Scott, writing for the majority, firmly rejected the argument that Article 96(3), which validates acts by a judge who has reached retirement age, could be interpreted as a blanket protection for post-retirement rulings. “Such a strained or extended interpretation would make a complete mockery of the specific tenure regime,” she wrote.

The court also dismissed the application of the “de facto officer doctrine”, a legal principle that can sometimes legitimise acts performed under the guise of authority. Justice Winder noted that Mrs Bowe-Darville had not only vacated the office but was receiving retirement benefits and had ceased to act under any judicial mandate.

The court’s decision to void the judgment and remit the matter for a fresh hearing before a current Supreme Court justice comes amid broader concerns about delays and inefficiencies in the Bahamian judiciary, issues recently highlighted by former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.

In a public letter earlier this year, Mr Ingraham condemned the judiciary for chronic delays, accusing some judges of taking years to deliver rulings and even retiring without issuing written judgments. “There are known cases where judges take more than three years to deliver their judgments. Indeed, some have retired without giving a written reasoned judgment for oral decisions they have made. This is simply inexcusable,” he wrote.

His comments followed observations from Justice Dale Fitzpatrick, a Canadian judge appointed to the Supreme Court, who warned that prolonged delays were threatening to “crush this system”. Mr Ingraham echoed the alarm, arguing that “justice delayed is justice denied,” and calling for improved case management and punctuality from the bench.

In the Nonord case, listed as Nonard in the ruling, the Court of Appeal made clear that any attempt to circumvent constitutional provisions, even to finalise a long-overdue ruling, cannot be tolerated. Justice Crane-Scott emphasised the importance of upholding constitutional integrity: “Public confidence in the administration of justice will be maintained not by invoking the de facto officer doctrine to save obviously unconstitutional judgments, but by adherence to the mopping-up regime set out in Article 96(2).”

The court ordered both parties to submit written arguments on legal costs by August 29. No oral hearing will be held on the issue.