The Tribune

By DANA SMITH

Tribune Staff Reporter

dsmith@tribunemedia.net

THE government must give a “full and frank explanation” of exactly what the matters of national security were that caused the Attorney General’s office to order that a gun and ammunition case be dropped, the FNM said yesterday.

Opposition Leader Hubert Minnis said “there can be no conflict of interest or perception of conflict of interest in the administration of justice” and questioned why “out of the thousand of cases” was this one drawn to the attention of the Acting Attorney General.

Dr Minnis was speaking to the press in the Opposition’s conference room at the House of Assembly, after a heated row broke out in the House over the dropped case, forcing the Speaker to temporarily adjourn the session.

“The FNM in the House of Assembly took a resolute and unflinching stand in demanding an immediate public debate on a matter of critical national importance,” Dr Minnis said of the row. “The FNM is also demanding that this critically important matter be fully investigated by a select committee of the House of Assembly.”

The matter in question is gun and ammunition charges against George and Janice Hayles being discontinued under the watch of Education Minister Jerome Fitzgerald as Acting Attorney General.

The Hayles each faced a charge of possession of a firearm and ammunition, after police claimed finding them with a .380 pistol and 19 live rounds for the weapon.

The accused, represented by Mrs Allyson Maynard-Gibson before her appointment as Attorney General, pleaded not guilty to the charges at their arraignment days after their arrest in 2010.

The discontinuation of the charges took place last year on Friday, December 28.

Not long after the charges were dropped, Mr Fitzgerald issued a statement saying he was satisfied that grounds existed for his decision. He said he did so because it was a matter of national security.

Dr Minnis dubbed Mr Fitzgerald’s actions as a “series of strange and apparently irregular acts” and said it “raises serious questions about the due administration of justice.”

“If we live in a country where there is the Rule of Law then there should be no problem whatsoever in the responsible Minsters giving a full and frank explanation to the Bahamian people, through their Parliament, of exactly what were the matters of national security which caused a matter, in which the accused had already been called upon to make out a defence, to be discontinued based upon the political direction of the Acting Attorney General,” Dr Minnis said.

And if a “full and frank explanation” cannot be given, he said, then it raises “very grave concerns about the impartial and non-political administration of justice” in the Bahamas.

Dr Minnis claimed an Acting Attorney General “would have had absolutely no reason” to visit the offices of the substantive Minister and questioned: “Out of the thousands of files of cases going on in the criminal courts, which are under the control of the office of the Attorney General, how was it that this one file came or was drawn to the attention of the Acting Attorney General?”

The opposition leader also asked how Mr Fitzgerald determined the case was a matter of national security and called upon National Security Minister Bernard Nottage for confirmation and to explain why police “went ahead and prosecuted” the case.

“In order to maintain the respect of the general public for the integrity of the criminal justice system, its fairness and impartiality, it must be made more than abundantly clear that there is absolutely no unwarranted political interference, no curry favour, no conflict of interest, in the administration of the criminal law,” Dr Minnis said.

When House resumed, Mr Fitzgerald addressed the House, reading Constitution articles that granted the Attorney General power to “discontinue at any stage, before judgment, is delivered any criminal proceedings.”

Article 78 of the Constitution, he said, also notes the Attorney General “shall not be subject to direction or control of any other person or authority.”

“Therefore, it is an unfettered power and no one can direct the Attorney General,” Mr Fitzgerald declared.

“In this matter, I exercised the power reposed in me by Article 78.1c after reviewing the file and satisfying myself that there was sufficient written advice on the file for the granting of a nolle prosequi (no prosecution).

“I came to this conclusion (and) I was consistent with the Act... As a result, I have therefore concluded from discussing or disclosing any other matters pertaining to the exercise of that power set out in Article 78, which in this case I deemed in the public interest – and as I stated, in a press release – as a matter of national security.”