ATTORNEY General Allyson Maynard Gibson criticised lawyer Fred Smith for “disparaging comments” made against her and the office of the Attorney General at the time of his arraignment on Friday on a charge of “causing harm”. Despite Mr Smith’s assertions Mrs Maynard-Gibson said that his case was never directed to her or her office.
She said that as a lawyer, especially as a Queen’s Counsel, Mr Smith is aware, that under the Police Act, the police bring prosecutions in the Magistrates’ Courts on a daily basis without reference to the Attorney General’s Office and without seeking the advice of the Attorney General.
“By law, it was not necessary for the Police to seek my advice, the Police did not seek my advice and I did not advise the Police. I can categorically say that I did not consult the Prime Minister in relation to this charge about which I was not consulted nor did the Prime Minister ever communicate with me about this charge,” she said.
Mrs Maynard-Gibson said that any suggestion by Mr Smith that there was a “political decision at the very highest level” that resulted in his charge before the court is “ totally unfounded and untruthful.”
“I also deny the outrageous allegations by Mr Smith against me and my Office including that I have ‘chosen to victimize’ him, that I am ‘persecuting’ him and all other such allegations against me. The statements made by Mr Smith appear to be defamatory. I hope that Mr Smith will reflect on what he said, accept that the said statements are false and publicly acknowledge this with a full and unqualified apology,” she said.
The Attorney General said that if Mr Smith fails to take advantage of the opportunity to correct the “egregious wrong” that he has committed against her, she reserved the right to take “ further action.”
Comments
rosiepi 11 years, 3 months ago
"I hope that Mr Smith will reflect on what he said, accept that the said statements are false and publicly acknowledge this with a full and unqualified apology,” she said.
The Attorney General said that if Mr Smith fails to take advantage of the opportunity to correct the “egregious wrong” that he has committed against her, she reserved the right to take “ further action.”
“The power to take over, continue and discontinue proceedings at any stage before judgment is vested in the attorney general alone, to the exclusion of anyone. In the exercise of the powers conferred upon me, I as the Attorney General am not subject to the discretion or control of any other person or authority.”-Ms Maynard-Gibson
In this particular case whereby one has the benefit of the reading of his own words ( in this publication for example) and the videos of the antics and harm done by Mr Keod Smith, it would appear that anyone would be hard pressed not to bring him up on charges; but to charge the man for whom he has committed battery against? And then to use one's office to threaten that person for his protests? And where is the wrong claimed to have been done to the Ag's office? If we cast about for examples of said office's interference with police, in highly charged cases etc. we need look no further than...say to the recent nolle prosequi cases of well connected drug dealers/murderers like Daniel Ayo or former clients gun/drug smugglers George and Janice Hayles whose files might present an embarrassment to this lofty office holder upon presentation in court I cannot imagine Ms Maynard Gibson in a role of "advising the police", and I do not think Mr Fred Smith presumes to accuse her of such, rather she tells them what to do. In her own words she is "not subject to control of any persons or authority", yet how do these controversial decisions to come to be made through her hand? In this society that is a very dangerous challenge to those seeking justice... or to anyone intent on merely pointing out the obvious and the ridiculous.
dahasamo 11 years, 3 months ago
This comment is encouraging, not only for the clarity of thought, but also because it expresses in just a few words the blatant hypocrisy of the holder of the office of Attorney General. She is truly a member of the club of politicians who believe that if they cover their eyes, they cannot be seen by anyone.
TalRussell 11 years, 3 months ago
Personally, I don't think the courts time should be wasted by those with political axes/causes to grind. No one is either too big to be charged or be criticized. Everyday it seems there's some high-ups, threatening to sue the backside off someone. We simply do not have enough judges to deal with verbal fights between those whom wish to tie up our courts over their verbal hurt'in. Again, personally i do think members of the government should be the very last to do anything that may hinder any Bahamalander's free speech. Threatening free speech, even when sometimes recklessly spoken, can be seen as being too damn close to protecting the powerful Comrades from scrutiny. I'd be all for it, when the end results would see some of the powerful heading to jail, but that simply is not the Bahamalanders courts thinking. The rich get richer and the poor grown more hurt'in. Now, that's real suffering hurt'in. Not that stick and stones silly you hurt my feelings stuff. .
...
The_Oracle 11 years, 3 months ago
Political interference does not have to be direct, nor directed: Prosecutors, registrar Generals, every Civil servant through the ranks must simply do what they "think" the Politicos in power would have them do, as a matter of self preservation. This is where political persecution happens most often and through the ranks. All the Civil servant must do is not do the wrong thing by the Chief of the day. This also gives the political heads some cover, in their claims of not directly interfering. They interfere via their rhetoric, personal actions, and perceived agendas. Consider Fred Mitchel and his Work permit statements of a few months ago, no doubt caused a renewed Lynch mob mentality among some Immigration officers, and stress upon those at the head of immigration. Did they not step right up to and over the plate at Atlantis? (challenging the Dolphin trainer in front of tourists) This would never have happened under Ingraham, him being buddy buddy with Sol. Perception in political alignment is critical to survival in the civil services.
Sign in to comment
OpenID