The Tribune

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

ATTORNEY General Allyson Maynard-Gibson must be held to account for the number of ‘nolle prosequis’ being issued by her office.

This week, two defendants who were awaiting trial in connection with the gunpoint robbery of Deputy Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis at his home had the case against them withdrawn in the Supreme Court. The third defendant was killed in a shootout with police in September.

During the hearing on Monday, Crown prosecutor Patrick Sweeting produced a nolle prosequi (no prosecution) signed by the Attorney General asking that the charge be discontinued against the two accused.

The men were accused of robbing Mr Davis of jewellery worth $93,000, a jewellery box worth $200, Baraka gold jewellery worth $700, an opal top wallet worth $450, a Royal Bank of Canada credit card and a driver’s licence worth $15. They were also accused of robbing Mr Davis’ wife, Ann Marie, of $2,953, and Wilberforce Seymour of $10.

Notably, Mr Davis was Acting Prime Minister at the time of the incident as Perry Christie was out of the country.

Why was a nolle issued? What happened to the video evidence? The public deserves an explanation.

In no other country would accused assailants rob and hold-up an Acting Prime Minister at gunpoint and the case suddenly disappear. Was the nolle issued for a political reason? Something seems shady!

Why is the Office of the Attorney General handing out nolle prosequis so habitually? How many nolles were entered this year and on what grounds?

Yes, it is sometimes beneficial to enter a nolle from an administrative standpoint but what is the reason for the issuance of the nolle in this matter?

Why does the public not yet know what national security issue led to a nolle prosequi being entered by then acting Attorney General Jerome Fitzgerald on Mrs Maynard-Gibson's former clients’ behalf?

In September, Labour Minister Shane Gibson hit out at Mrs Maynard-Gibson for not informing him of her decision to stop a private prosecution against Sandals Royal Bahamian and two of its senior executives.

Interestingly, Mr Davis and Minister of Tourism Obie Wilchcombe said they were both unaware that a nolle prosequi had been issued on August 15 - the same day the hotel terminated more than 600 employees. Both ministers were critical and expressed a belief that the matter could injure the governing party’s public image, specifically its deeply rooted ties to the labour movement.

Mrs Maynard-Gibson shot back, dismissing the criticisms and stating that “the Attorney General in the execution of her constitutional duty is never swayed by the political objectives of her colleagues or anyone else”.

So, can we be assured that no political objectives (or anyone else) caused the issuance of this recent nolle? And was the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the issuance of this nolle before it was presented to the Court?

Comments and responses to ajbahama@hotmail.com