The Tribune

“MR SPEAKER, the constitutional system under which our country is governed is in my view a good one which can guarantee that good governments can govern uninterruptedly and successfully. But to do so requires complete dedication to and observance of the legalism of our Constitution, the laws of the land and the conventions and spirit of the Constitution by which the men who govern must be guided.…

“Mr Speaker, I know that there is blame to be attached to my Ministry, but I also know that under our system only one person can accept responsibility for that blame and that is the person constitutionally responsible for the Ministry.

“Therefore, in order that our constitutional institutions and conventions might function continuously, and with much personal sacrifice to myself and family, I have today asked the Prime Minister to relieve me of my responsibility as a Cabinet Minister.”

The date was Wednesday, August 27, 1975. Resigning that day was the late Simeon Bowe, at the time Works Minister and MP for Freetown during the Pindling administration.

This resignation was the result of the PVC pipe’s scandal that dragged on for almost a year. Mr Bowe admitted that “mistakes were made which ought not to have been made, there were acts committed which fell below the standard of service to which the public is entitled, and errors of judgment happened which more prudence could have avoided.“

However, Mr Bowe fully understood the age-old traditions of the Westminster system of government, took full responsibility for his department, and committed political hari-kari. In other words, he resigned his ministerial post and stepped down.

On the sidelines, Coconut Grove MP, the late Edmund Moxey, himself feeling the heat of Pindling’s political ovens, celebrated the announcement. “Yesterday’s activity,” he said, “is a great demonstration that the system has begun to work in this country — which is a very healthy sign.”

Today - 40 years later - instead of moving forward, we seem to have slipped back. Faced with another constitutional question — wrapped up in the uncodified conventions, practices and precedents of Westminster — some of our politicians are casting eyes heavenward searching for excuses to wiggle out of their dilemma.

This time, it is a question of whether a member of the executive government lost his way and trespassed into the judicial compound.

The difficulty arose when V Alfred Gray, who at the time was Minister of Local Government, and Minister of Agriculture and Marine Resources, received a call from one of his constituents in Mayaguana. Her teenage son had run afoul of the law, was found guilty by Administrator Zephaniah Newbold of assaulting a police officer and was sentenced to three months in prison in Nassau. Mr Gray, wearing his hat as the MP for the area, but forgetting that he was also a member of the executive government, put a call through to the administrator on behalf of his constituent. Mr Gray, admitted the call, but denied that the call was to influence Mr Newbold’s judicial decision. According to Mr Gray, a lawyer, he was just giving a bit of advice to the administrator, who had heard the teenager’s case in his capacity as a magistrate. Mr Gray’s advice was that as Mr Newbold had already granted the teenager bail, he could release him until his appeal was heard, rather than make him wait in prison for his day in court.

However, Administrator Newbold had not granted the teenager bail. But fearful for his job, and interpreting Mr Gray’s words as a threat, he released the youth and washed his hands of the case.

Of course, there was political fall-out. The Commissioner of Police investigated the matter and handed his report to the Attorney General, who because of “conflicting evidence”, decided not to carry the matter further.

Acting Attorney General Damian Gomez said the major problem with the case was that in discussing the alleged threat, Mr Newbold could not recall what Mr Gray had said to him.

“Judicial interference,” said Mr Gomez, “is not necessarily criminal unless it is accompanied by an offer, a bribe or a threat. Bribery was never alleged in this case. What was alleged was that there was a threat. When asked what that threat was and what was said, he (Mr Newbold) couldn’t remember.”

Of course, our reporter immediately telephoned Administrator Newbold in Mayaguana to find out if in fact he did have a loss of memory.

“I can’t say what Gomez is getting at,” said a baffled administrator. “I never said (I couldn’t remember). I don’t know where he got that from.”

“In the conversation (with Mr Gray), by way of telephone, (he) made a statement in harsh sounding tone as if he was angry and one of the things he said is if I don’t understand Family Island administration, he would make it easy for me,” Mr Newbold recalled. “I don’t know exactly what he meant by that but I took it to be a threat. (Mr Gomez’ claim) is (therefore) not true. I don’t know what angle he’s looking at it from.”

Mr Newbold said that weeks ago he had told police officials the exact words he had told The Tribune. “I gave (them) my statement about a month now,” he said.

Of course, this exchange between Minister and Administrator was a telephone conversation, in which body language could not be interpreted. Words and tone of voice relayed the message, which seemed very clear to Mr Newbold. The message that he got from that call, in the exact words of Minister Gray, was: “If you don’t understand family island administration, I will make it easy for you.” The only way to ease that burden would be to remove Mr Newbold from his Mayaguana post.

However, in this situation, it all depends upon who you believe. We know neither man. However, we have had the advantage of seeing Mr Gray in action in the House of Assembly by TV coverage. We have seen his arrogant, flamboyant, bombastic behaviour. We have heard his tone of voice. As a result we believe Mr Newbold’s version of events. Fearful for his job, Mr Newbold interpreted Mr Gray’s words to mean that the Charlton boy was to be released or else. And so young Charlton walks free today despite having been found guilty of assaulting a police officer.

Maybe, this incident, if magnified across our archipelago, is one of the many reasons that we can’t get crime under control. All the well connected have to do is run to their ”representer” to get special consideration. Unfortunately, in Mr Gray’s case, he forgot that he wore more than one hat — he was a member of the executive who had trespassed onto judicial ground. His place was at the cabinet table, not on the magistrate’s bench.

In this case, no one has to even consider what was said, or what tone of voice Mr Gray used in that telephone conversation. Mr Gray should have never lifted that telephone receiver and dialed the Administrator’s number to discuss such a matter. The conversation should never have taken place. No one needs an investigation. The matter was settled when Mr Gray admitted to making the call. The late Simeon Bowe decided what the next step should be in his situation. It is now for Mr Gray to follow his example.

Mr Gray might have felt duty-bound to assist his constituent, but he could have asked one of his colleagues from the legal fraternity to investigate the matter for him.

On Monday, acting Local Government Minister Hope Strachan told The Tribune that no decision had been made on whether the Mayaguana island administrator would be transferred to another jurisdiction. This statement alone confirms that the matter is under consideration and supports Mr Newbold’s belief that his job was being threatened by the Minister.

Instead of creating all this political turmoil, Mr Gray should follow the example of Mr Bowe, bow to the “spirit of the Constitution by which men who govern must be guided” — and step down. In our opinion, the rules have been breached — he has forfeited his place around the cabinet table.

It’s now time to do the honourable thing, Mr Gray. Tip your hat to your Cabinet colleagues, close the Cabinet door behind you, and concentrate on being the MP for MICAL.