“PM’s CJ remarks were ‘nonsense’ – Parker says Minnis lacks firm grasp of constitution” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis has a ‘tremendous misapprehension’ of the constitutional provisions which relate to the appointment of a chief justice and does not appear to have a ‘firm grasp’ of the constitution as a whole, Bahamas Bar Association President (BBA) Kahlil Parker charged yesterday.

Parker was responding to comments the prime minister made at a press conference on Sunday.

Minnis said the appointment of a substantive chief justice is not as important to him as dealing with the growing labor unrest at Bahamas Power and Light (BPL).

Minnis also said the constitution provides a ‘certain timeframe’ for him to appoint a chief justice, and claimed he is within that timeframe.

Senor Justice Stephen Isaacs has been acting for four months.”

First to the constitution for clarification on this matter; “Article 94 (1) states, “The chief justice shall be appointed by the governor general by instruments under the public seal on the recommendation of the prime minister after consultation with the leader of the opposition.”

“Article 95 (1) states, “If the office of chief justice is vacant or if the chief justice is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his office, then, until a person is appointed to that office and assumed those functions, they shall be performed by such other person, qualified under paragraph (3) Article 94 of this Constitution for appointment as a justice, as the governor general, acting in accordance with the advice of the prime minister may appoint for that purpose by instrument under the public seal.”

Now if you want to accuse the prime minister of not being more proactive in filling the Chief Justice position that is one thing but to mislead intentionally or unintentionally by accusing the prime minister of lacking [a] “firm grasp of [the] constitution” is an entirely different matter and if you would want to make such an accusation then you would have to prove where the prime minister has violated the constitution by not naming a chief justice to date because the onus in now on you to make this case; you either make your case or simply be up front and truthful about the real reasons behind your criticisms, because it would appear as per the constitution that as long as a qualified person is in the position of chief justice they can remain their indefinably, theoretically, unless the complaint is that the person is not qualified to be there or they have stated that they do not want the responsibility of this position; none of which I feel in the case here.

When it comes to the naming of a Chief Justice and all of the ‘hoop-la’ some of us wish to create over it, we must then realize that we, the people, are partly the blame for what we criticize the prime minister for, as many of us have advocated that certain positions in government be moved from appointments and to be positions wherein one is elected by the people; the Chief Justice position being one of these positions, by  doing this we move the ‘power; away from this prime minister and any future prime minister.

So while some wish to complain about the time that is being spent to appoint a substantive Chief Justice and go on to accuse others of lacking a firm grasp of the constitution while they themselves seem to be confused about the constitutional provisions as it relates to the appointment of a chief justice, why can’t these very persons use their limited influence to  push for a change of the system as we move to be more progressive?

END