By DANA SMITH
Tribune Staff Reporter
dsmith@tribunemedia.net
THE court “was not wrong” in issuing an order to “maintain the status quo” with respect to the operation of web-shops, as web-shops legally have a license to operate, DNA Leader Branville McCartney explained yesterday.
He was commenting on the court order that neither law enforcement nor the government can shut down the country’s web-shop operations pending the filing of documents commencing “a formal legal challenge” and the hearing of the matter, according to the Attorney General. Mr McCartney also criticised the “flawed” process of the referendum, which he said contributed to the present legal situation.
“I don’t think the court was wrong. From a legal point of view they gave something called a conservatory order which basically said that they will maintain the status quo,” he said.
“Now the status quo, I would assume is in relation to web-shop operations, which they have a business license for.
“From my understanding, the attorneys took firstly to be able to produce all their documentation ordered for Monday of next week. Those types of orders are allowed... I don’t see there being anything wrong with the order.”
Taking the matter before the courts is a “concern”, the former Bamboo Town MP said, maintaining that it would not have come to this had the referendum not been “flawed.”
“I blame it on the fact that the government has put a process to the Bahamian people that is flawed. As a result, the web-shop owners have a legal right to challenge it and what they are going to challenge is the process,” Mr McCartney said.
“I’ve been saying this from day one. Had the prime minister went about a proper referendum, there would not be this concern before the courts. Because of the botched process, there are a number of legal questions to be considered.”
Prime Minister Perry Christie “did not have the authority” to say web-shops must close, Mr McCartney continued.
“That is, if the web-shops were acting outside the capacity of their business license then it’s the licensing authority to go about revoking the licenses,” he said.
“If they were working illegally, it’s up to the Commissioner of Police to carry out the law. Although the prime minister has wide powers, there are certain things he just cannot do or it will not have effect, and this is an example of it.”
Comments
TalRussell 11 years, 10 months ago
Comrades the DNA team needs to take time out from misunderstanding a law which what it really states is that it's OK, if you rent your computer terminals to Google stuff and do your email business, but not to conduct unlawful acts. Ask where you read it's legal to use them computer terminals to be betting ya paychecks on da "spin?"
Court injunction or not, he policemen's need to start do'in some serious shut r down and lock them up? Let put the onus of proof on the numbers "bosses" high powered legal teams to stand before the Judge to explain why their machines should not have been confiscated by the uniformed policemen's?
Comrade Bran, on January 28 a resounding majority of voters done decided what the law is and ain't. The people's vote is all supreme, not the Supreme Court. Ain't you as a Bahamian, politician and lawyer knows that?
Maybe you handful sticking around after the 2012 General Elections DNA Comrades, need to charter a Jitney and head over to Paradise Island on Saturday night to do some serious unwind to think about ya political futures. May i suggest think while catching Dita Von Teese burlesque show? Both of you are revealing much more about yourselves than you should be exposing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdIp-c0E…
.
concernedcitizen 11 years, 10 months ago
Tals you right on this ,the court just ruled to keep the status qua ,basically continue with your illegal casinos ...My my you ever know one of our judge to get to work before 10 in da morning ,,,,that was sign by J Issacs before the kettle hot for morning tea ,lol
JohnDoe 11 years, 10 months ago
Mr. McCartney the PM never said that web-shops must close. In fact he said just the opposite, even specifically stating that web-shops should continue to meet their legal obligations to staff and other persons with whom they have legitimate legal relations. What the PM said was that web-shops must cease their gaming activities, an entirely different proposition. I personally have no difficulty with the injunction, however, it would appear to me that to obtain the injunction the lawyers engaged in a semantical two-step that appear misrepresent some material facts.
sense 11 years, 10 months ago
@TalRussell,,seriously? you ran on with the most garbage, find a trash can. The people's vote is all supreme, yes true, but not to shut the web shops down..their votes were supreme towards saying No to the taxation and regulation of Web shops by this present government and No to a National Lottery so don't use the people's majority vote as basis to say that Bahamians want web-shops to be shut down or that web-shop gambling should be made illegal because the poll was not for that!
@JohnDoe, and to you, if the PM ask the web shops to cease all gaming activities and if anyone caught being involved or web shops who choose to not cease will be subject to arrest...does he have to say the words "shut down" for it to be so..common sense here,,,The P.M ordered for these web-shops to basically shut down one way or the other, regardless how it was said..what? so their employees are to report to work to remain work-less all day? Web-shops were basically ordered to shut-down.
Overall, cease the noise in the market, there isn't any law on the books that say web shop gambling is illegal,,the laws against gambling that exist are out-dated. Until there is a law that makes web shop gambling illegal its not a crime! Which is why the injunction was granted,,which is why the PM or the police knows they don't have the right to shut these establishments down on the basis that its illegal. Bahamians have been spoon fed lies for years, we must read and study the facts to not be swindled!! Spoonful of common sense, have a great day.
legalmindatwork 11 years, 10 months ago
I wonder if you have a law degree or anything of that nature to fully understand how the law operates....although the act itself does not specify online gaming....it states that ANY form of gambling is illegal in the country...and by paying in and receiving money for the purposes of gambling is ILLEGAL....and yes you have noticed that the laws are outdated but a law that was created in 1969 would have no contemplation for any electronic devices when it was written so there could be no specific reference to something that would have been created some 30 to 50 years later. The whole point of the judiciary is to interpret the law as it is and to the various facts of different cases....
So the point that because it is not specified in the law is not a valid argument....the judiciary makes the law wide to a certain extent so as to accommodate different circumstances that each cases brings...I suggest you do a bit more research instead of taking other people's arguments and making them your own.
JohnDoe 11 years, 10 months ago
@legalmindatwork, you have indulged this blogger with a response, which is very graciuos of you, because that is much more than the content of their post deserve. The only thing in addition I would add to the above blogger is that there is some redemptive value in unconscious incompetence or unawareness, however, conscious incompetence or believing that you know more than you actually do is irredeemable.
sense 11 years, 10 months ago
@JohnDoe, nice use of vocabulary but not flattered. i don't believe that i know it all, i simply have an opinion. An opinion that i feel could be made in regards to a law that is fat with discrimination towards Bahamians in this 21st century. conscious incompetence? unawareness? Really? lol Please..... use that to describe the law makers in this country who has ignored to amend such a discriminatory law for all these years. Have a good day.
sense 11 years, 10 months ago
In this 21st century when laws should no longer discriminate against the rights of people my argument is in every bit valid, and i don't need a law degree to know that. Here we have tourist who freely can gamble in our country and we can't. When it comes to the law being specific, I understand, but i believe that we both can agree that this law should be amended to either make gambling illegal for all, whether a visitor or Bahamians or legalize for all.
USAhelp 11 years, 10 months ago
Guess were really not free our votes did not mean anything. Guess were really a communist country that only the big bosses have a say.
spoitier 11 years, 10 months ago
I was just reading through the Lotteries and Gaming act of the Bahamas and I don't see anything remotely that could be interpet as maybe selling numbers in the Bahamas could be legal, in fact everything is saying that it is illegal. So having a business license doesn't gave a business the rights to break the law, someone need to seriously look at the people in charge of running this country from the PM and cabinet to the supreme court and police force. The Christian Council was all over this referrandum trying to get a No vote, they need to keep the heat up on the government to find out how in the world the police can't enforce the law, how in the world a judge could get this order to stop and so early in the morning, when other cases can be delayed because we don't hae enough judges. Now watch and see them go back to the old Bahamian way of letting things take longer than expected and the injunction will never come up in court.
Sign in to comment
OpenID