By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
A THREE-YEAR dispute over efforts to remove Deputy Financial Secretary Athena Marche from her post has been laid bare in a Supreme Court ruling, revealing that Financial Secretary Simon Wilson accused the senior official of unresolved performance problems and insubordination before she was given a choice between transferring to the University of The Bahamas or facing retirement in the public interest.
Justice Leif Farquharson has now temporarily blocked the government from taking further steps to retire Ms Marche, finding that her challenge raises serious questions that must be determined before the process can continue.
The ruling provides the first public account of a dispute that began in April 2023 and has kept Ms Marche away from her duties for more than three years.
Ms Marche, who was appointed Deputy Financial Secretary by the Governor General in March 2020 with effect from July 2018, attended a meeting with Mr Wilson on April 24, 2023.
According to the ruling, Mr Wilson referred to a memorandum prepared by then-Acting Financial Secretary Marlon Johnson and said Ms Marche’s performance difficulties and insubordinate behaviour described in the document remained unresolved.
She was presented with two options: vacate the office of Deputy Financial Secretary and transfer to the University of The Bahamas, or face a recommendation that she be retired in the public interest.
Ms Marche, through her attorney Khalil Parker KC, disputed the allegations, challenged the procedure being followed and requested particulars of the alleged misconduct. Her attorney also wrote to the then-Director of Legal Affairs seeking an investigation into her treatment.
On May 11, 2023, Ms Marche was placed on administrative leave for two weeks without loss of pay.
The ruling said the letter placing her on leave gave no reason. The leave was subsequently extended several times, and she remains away from her duties.
By March 2024, the matter had escalated.
The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and the Public Service informed Ms Marche that a recommendation had been made to retire her in the public interest under regulation 45 of the Public Service Commission Regulations.
A six-page report prepared by Mr Wilson was enclosed, and Ms Marche was given 14 days to show why she should not be retired.
The process was subsequently halted while the parties were engaged in conciliation before the Department of Labour.
They now disagree over how long that standstill was intended to last.
Ms Marche launched judicial review proceedings in May 2025 challenging the decision to begin the retirement process, Mr Wilson’s recommendation that she be retired and the decision to place and keep her on administrative leave.
She alleges illegality, procedural unfairness, irrationality, improper purpose and abuse of power, and also challenges the lawful basis for her administrative leave.
Her lawyers have argued that allegations of insubordination, poor performance, attendance difficulties and related misconduct are disciplinary in substance and should have been dealt with under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Commission Regulations rather than through retirement in the public interest.
Justice Farquharson said that argument raised a serious question for the court.
Regulation 45 permits the retirement of a public officer in the public interest where, on grounds that cannot suitably be dealt with under other provisions, the officer should be required to retire.
The judge said the court would have to consider whether regulation 45 was lawfully used in Ms Marche’s circumstances or whether the allegations against her should instead have been dealt with under the disciplinary regulations.
He also identified questions about whether Ms Marche had received adequate particulars of the allegations against her before the retirement process began and whether the process met the required standard of procedural fairness.
Significantly, Justice Farquharson said the court would have to consider the propriety or rationality of relying on allegations going back as far as 2012 — years before Ms Marche’s elevation to Deputy Financial Secretary in 2020.
The judge stressed that his ruling does not decide whether the allegations against Ms Marche are true or whether the government ultimately has grounds to retire her.
He found only that the case was neither frivolous nor vexatious and raised serious issues requiring judicial determination.
Ms Marche argued that being forced into retirement in the public interest could damage her public office, reputation, pension interests, career and future employability. Justice Farquharson found that damages might not adequately remedy some of the potential consequences if she ultimately won her case.
The government, meanwhile, argued that there was no serious question with a realistic prospect of success, that regulation 45 authorised the proposed process and that Ms Marche had been invited to show why she should not be retired.
It also argued that further delay would affect the public service and the need to maintain discipline and integrity.
Justice Farquharson was unpersuaded that any urgency required the retirement process to be completed before the substantive court hearing, particularly because it had effectively been suspended since April 2024.
He said there was no evidence of any new circumstance requiring the process to be completed in the short period before the hearing.
The injunction prevents the Attorney General, the Minister of Labour and the Public Service and anyone acting on their behalf from restarting or taking further steps to retire Ms Marche under regulation 45 until the court determines her application for an extension of time and, if allowed, her substantive judicial review, or until further order.
The matters are scheduled to be heard on September 9.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.