The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court ruling has revealed that acting Senior Magistrate Aniska Isaacs was quietly placed on administrative leave, removed from active duties in the Magistrate’s Court and transferred back to the Supreme Court after complaints were made about her conduct and temperament, even though the Judicial and Legal Services Commission later decided that no disciplinary proceedings should be brought against her.

Acting Justice Raynard Rigby, KC, has disclosed the sequence of events in a ruling dismissing Ms Isaacs’ bid for an interim injunction that would have preserved her status as acting senior magistrate while she pursued judicial review proceedings against the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.

The ruling lifts the veil on a behind-the-scenes clash between a judicial officer and the constitutional body responsible for advising on the appointment, promotion, transfer and discipline of judicial officers.

Ms Isaacs argued that the commission’s decisions damaged her reputation, undermined her judicial independence, breached due process and unlawfully stripped her of the office to which she had been constitutionally appointed.

Acting Justice Rigby rejected her application, finding that the matter was not urgent and that there was no strong enough evidence before the court to justify interim relief.

The judge found that the balance of convenience weighed strongly against Ms Isaacs and said public confidence in the judiciary was a critical factor.

Ms Isaacs was appointed Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal in July 2022. In June 2024, she was seconded to the Office of the Judiciary and appointed to act as Senior Stipendiary and Circuit Magistrate for 18 months. Her acting appointment was extended in December 2025 for a further 18 months.

She was assigned to Magistrate’s Court No 8.

According to the ruling, the relationship between Ms Isaacs and the JLSC was presumed to be cordial and professional until complaints were made by local practitioners, members of The Bahamas Bar Association and accused people who appeared before her.

The complaints triggered an investigation that ended on June 1, when the JLSC determined that no recommendation would be made for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against her.

However, before that conclusion, Ms Isaacs had already been placed on administrative leave and later told that her secondment as acting Senior Magistrate had been rescinded.

The dispute began after attorney Devard Francis appeared before Ms Isaacs in April in a trial involving defendant Albert Ferguson.

According to Ms Isaacs’ affidavit, Mr Francis requested an adjournment, which she denied. She said Mr Francis then said that he and his client were leaving the court. Mr Francis left and the defendant later left.

Ms Isaacs reported Mr Francis’ conduct to The Bahamas Bar Association on April 9, alleging that he encouraged the defendant to abscond. Mr Francis then made a written complaint to the Chief Justice, which was forwarded to Ms Isaacs on April 11.

Around the same date, five additional complaints were forwarded to the Chief Justice involving Ms Isaacs’ exercise of discretion concerning adjournments and the approval of suretors for bail.

Ms Isaacs said the Chief Magistrate declined to assign her any first pleas on April 14 and April 15. She said she later received a request for files connected to two complaints, but was on the bench until after 5pm and did not see the email immediately.

On April 16, she was informed that she had been placed on administrative leave, effective April 20. She claimed she was not given a proper opportunity to respond, was not told the lawful authority relied on for the administrative leave or the removal of first pleas from her court, and was not given a fair hearing.

Her administrative leave was extended on May 11 until May 20, and she was invited to attend a meeting with the JLSC on May 14.

Ms Isaacs said she arrived for the meeting at 1.03pm, but was told the members were not ready for her to enter the meeting room. She said she waited until 1.48pm, when Registrar Renaldo Toote informed her that an email had been sent earlier saying the meeting had been postponed.

She said she later saw that the adjournment email had been sent at 1.02pm and was told the meeting had to be adjourned because of the Prime Minister’s swearing-in at Government House.

Ms Isaacs met with three JLSC members on May 15. She said they told her the meeting was only to find out if she had any further response to the complaints. She said she tried to take verbatim notes, but was told several times that they were not taking notes and had not intended the meeting to last long. She described the meeting as rushed and perfunctory, lasting less than 30 minutes.

On May 19, while preparing to return to her duties as a magistrate, Ms Isaacs was informed by WhatsApp that her administrative leave had been extended until May 27.

She said she received no further notice of an extension and went to work on May 27. While there, she was told by her clerk that the Chief Magistrate had the files for her court. Around 11pm, she received an email saying her appointment as acting Senior Magistrate had been rescinded and that she was being transferred to the Supreme Court as Deputy Registrar.

She was reportedly told to report to the Supreme Court Registry on June 1 to be allocated office space and assigned files.

Ms Isaacs argued that the move was made without constitutional authority or due process. She also alleged a conflict of interest, saying Mr Toote acted both as head of department in recommending an investigation and as secretary to the JLSC.

Her attorney, Gia Moxey-Lockhart, argued that the JLSC’s letters placing her on leave, extending the leave and rescinding her secondment were “unlawful, unconstitutional, procedurally unfair, irrational and constitute an impermissible interference with [the Applicant’s] judicial independence”.

Mrs Moxey-Lockhart argued that the JLSC had failed to identify any constitutional, statutory or regulatory power authorising administrative leave. She said the central issue was whether General Orders could lawfully apply to Ms Isaacs’ employment to authorise suspension or removal from active judicial functions.

She also argued that the complaints arose from Ms Isaacs’ judicial decisions concerning adjournments, bail and case management and should not have led to administrative leave or any form of discipline.

Robert Adams, KC, who appeared with Bryann Hepburn for the JLSC and the Attorney General, argued that Ms Isaacs had not filed an application for leave to seek judicial review by the time the inter partes hearing took place.

He also argued that the May 27 letter did not transfer Ms Isaacs outside the Office of the Judiciary, but moved her within it. He said her secondment was to the Office of the Judiciary, meaning the Supreme Court and Magistrate Courts, not exclusively to the Magistrate’s Court.

Acting Justice Rigby accepted that position.

He found that Ms Isaacs’ claim that she had been demoted or transferred from the Magistrate’s Court to the Supreme Court without consent was “wholly unmeritorious”.

The judge said her appointment letter made clear that she had been seconded to the Office of the Judiciary, which included both the Supreme Court and Magistrate Courts. He said her substantive post remained Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal.

He also said the May 27 letter was not drafted with the strict elegance required, but in substance referred to her substantive capacity and meant she would remain within the Office of the Judiciary.

The judge said the words “you be transferred,” when read in context, meant she was being moved from the Magistrate’s Court to the Supreme Court. He said Mr Toote could have used the words posted or assigned, but the effect was to place Ms Isaacs in the role of Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court.

Acting Justice Rigby also found that Ms Isaacs had not shown urgency. He said the alleged threat to her judicial independence arose when she was placed on administrative leave in April, more than a month before she filed the application. By May 27, he said, the administrative leave had been lifted.

The judge said the facts did not show that Ms Isaacs or any third party would be denied a fair outcome or suffer grave prejudice if the interim order was refused.

He found that, given the complaints, it appeared appropriate for the JLSC to place Ms Isaacs on administrative leave while the investigation was conducted.

The judge said the JLSC regulations dealing with misconduct not warranting dismissal applied where disciplinary proceedings were instituted. In Ms Isaacs’ case, disciplinary proceedings were not instituted.

He also rejected her reputational harm argument at this stage, saying the factual foundation for it was absent from the papers before him.

The judge said granting the interim injunction would effectively restore Ms Isaacs to the post of acting Senior Magistrate, even if on administrative leave, and could give her the same relief she may seek in judicial review proceedings.

He said the court should be reluctant to restrain public bodies from carrying out their functions in the public interest where there is no strong evidence that they acted in bad faith.

“Furthermore, there can be no real sustaining argument that the investigation was a ‘witch hunt’ given the seriousness of the complaints,” he said.

He stressed that he was not deciding whether the complaints against Ms Isaacs were legitimate or valid, saying those issues would be for judicial review proceedings.

However, he said the complaints were serious and that at least one of them gave “pause for great concern” for the administration of justice and the exercise of judicial power.

He dismissed the application and awarded costs to the respondents, to be assessed if not agreed.