The Tribune

WHEN the FNM laid out its manifesto for the 2017 election, one item was very clear – a fixed date for General Elections. It’s a promise that remains unfulfilled.

In January 2019, Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis told The Tribune that the government intended to move legislation for fixed election dates, as well as term limits for the prime minister, that very week – but again, nothing materialised.

Indeed, what we have instead now is the very opposite – with first of all a guessing game over when the election would be called, followed by a date for the vote that is months early.

What is the advantage of a fixed date for an election? Well, it gives the nation the opportunity to be prepared, to start with. Each party can have its manifestos prepared, the best candidates for the job chosen for each constituency, and everything put in place for any possible transition – whether it is from one party to another or changes of ministers if a party remains in place.

The time of year can matter, too. Heaven forbid, but this election is happening in the middle of hurricane season. How well would a new government be prepared for any possible storm coming our way only a week or two into their administration?

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham weighed in on the subject yesterday too, saying that he felt a consistent election date is necessary to ensure people are properly advised and prepared for a general election.

“I had one snap election,” he said. “I called an election in March of 1997, which was about five months before the end of my term, and thereafter I determined that we ought to move towards a fixed election date as far as possible and I therefore held election in 2002 in May.”

Fellow former Prime Minister Perry Christie said he was surprised at the early election call by Dr Minnis. He said: “I thought he was gonnna try to give the country an opportunity to come to grips with the fact that he had a strong programme of vaccination and accelerate that programme over the next four or five months we would be in a better position than we are now. But prime ministers have a right to do that. He’s decided to do that. The Bahamian people have a right, the chance to say yes or no, so he’s exercised his constitutional right. I would not have at this time myself, but that is how we differ.”

Cabinet ministers were dutifully supporting the election call yesterday, from Renward Wells saying that we have the protocols in place to vote safely to Marvin Dames saying if “now is not the best time then tell us when the best time is”, which shows how little weight he gives the manifesto he ran on in 2017. Deputy Prime Minister Desmond Bannister said it was important to hold an election in the shortest time “so the next administration could create a new mandate to address the challenges ahead.”

It should be noted this isn’t an issue on which the PLP is seeking to make much of an issue. Opposition leader Phillip “Brave” Davis has previously said he has “no issue” with term limits, which is hardly a ringing endorsement one way or the other, while saying that no “responsible opposition” should be caught off-guard.

But at its heart, this is an issue about a party that said one thing on the campaign trail and then in government is operating exactly the opposite way. If a fixed election date was what the party desired, it could have done just that rather than jumping the gun.

Dr Minnis has said he will legislate the issue as quickly as possible if he wins another term. Is that a promise he will keep?

Compensation

Latario Rolle, who was unlawfully arrested, beaten by officers and falsely accused of theft has been awarded $163,000 in damages by the Supreme Court.

He was punched so hard in the face that it is expected he will lose six teeth from the injury.

Ten months after his arrest, the prosecution withdrew the case against him. None of his goods – which he was accused of stealing – have been returned to him.

All that took place six years ago, and the court criticised the Attorney General’s office, saying “the matter was attended to with no care or urgency. Crown counsel failed to call any witnesses, cross-examine or even file submissions to defend the allegations. This demonstrates an impenitent disregard towards the plaintiff.”

How often have we seen that disregard? So often, especially in immigration cases, we have seen a failure by the Attorney General’s office to adequately present a case, resulting in people discharged after years of unlawful detention.

It is right that Mr Rolle has been compensated – although we would note one thing. Douglas Ngumi was awarded just $750,950 after six and a half years of unlawful imprisonment and inhumane treatment. Mr Rolle deserves his compensation, but the price of depriving innocent people of their liberty should be higher. And it should be matched by a determination by the Attorney General’s office to do better, and for those officers, whatever uniform they wear, to be held responsible for such detentions.