The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Please permit me to share my views and comments in respect to what appears to be a predisposition on the part of the government to settle lawsuits without the benefit of having certain issues raised therein judicially ventilated and determined by the courts.

My views and comments are not intended to be an assessment of the merits or demerits of any of the more recent settlements or any of the other lawsuits which are reported to be under active discussion with a view to being settled.

And to the extent that my comments touch any of these matters, it is certainly not meant to be a bare criticism of the decision to settle any of these matters in the manner reported.

I do admit, however, that I find the suppression and/or withholding of certain details and information relative to any settlement where public funds are involved antithetical to good governance and to the extent that such is or was the case in relation to any of the recent cases, any criticism of the government in this regard is in my view warranted.

While I do not have a difficulty with any litigant or a government seeking to settle disputes out court where it is judicially and economically prudent to do so, it ought to be a policy that where taxpayer funds are being used to settle such suits, the details of any settlement ought to be made public unless there is a compelling reason in the national interest not do so.

How is the public (taxpayer) to make an informed assessment of the government decision if a government withholds or allows pertinent information to be suppressed?

Even if the government attorneys are of the view that a matter is likely to be unsuccessful if allowed to proceed to trial, it is open to the government to concede liability, and have the quantum of damages and cost independently assessed and determined by the court or some independent arbitrator(s). There will still be some cost attendant to taking this route, however the cost is likely to be less than having a full blown trial.

The need for court or an independent assessment becomes even more desirable, especially in cases where there may exist a perception of a bias, conflict of interest or improper influence being brought to bear on the decision to settle a particular suit.

Notwithstanding the economic risk or exposure associated with allowing a lawsuit to make its way to court, there are cases where the issues are such, that it may be in the wider public interest to have the issue judicially ventilated and determined.

In the absence of having certain issues judicially ventilated and determined, the public and the government is left in the dark and so is the law, as to the true state or position of the law in respect to the issues raised in any particular lawsuit.

I am also concerned that there is a perception that settlements are being influenced according to which party occupies the seat of government. It has now become possible to reasonably predict which disputes will be settled and by which political party if elected.

This is most unhealthy and further strengthens the need for there to be some independent review of the judicial position in respect to issues raised in some of these suits involving government entities, especially if the decision when taken, could reasonably be perceived as being infected with bias or conflict of interest or improper influence.

For the removal of any doubt, my comments and observations are not an assertion, suggestion or insinuation that, any of the cases settled or under discussion to be settled by this administration is or was infected with any such bias, conflict of interest or improper influence nor am I suggesting that any person, political party/organisation, public official or servant, minister of the government or politician or any attorney acted improperly or will or may do so in relation to any of the other lawsuits filed against the government and which may be under review with the aim of settling out of court.

CLAUDE B HANNA

Nassau,

July 11, 2022.