The Tribune

By Leandra Rolle

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

CHIEF Justice Ian Winder ordered the demolition of shanty town structures belonging to just two people in The Bahamas yesterday, far fewer than the government had sought.

The Office of the Attorney General wanted the Supreme Court to order the demolition of more than 260 structures in New Providence and Abaco that were built despite an injunction prohibiting such construction. However, the Chief Justice found that people were not properly notified of that injunction and could not be penalized for the breach.

If it stands, the ruling closes one avenue the Davis administration pursued to begin eradicating shanty town structures. The onus is now fully on the Minister of Works to initiate a process under the Building Regulations Act.

 Before ruling earlier this year that the Minnis administration’s shanty town eradication policies were lawful, Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson made an Order prohibiting the construction, erection or alteration of buildings or structures in shanty towns throughout the country.

 After the injunction was discharged, the OAG asked the Supreme Court to demolish structures built in breach of that injunction.

 An affidavit from Building Control Officer Crag Delancy said there had been an “exponential increase in the amount of illegal structures,” a conclusion CJ Winder accepted.

 Mr Delancy found that illegal structures expanded by 41 on the north side of SC Bootle Highway, Marsh Harbour; by 53 on the south side of SC Bootle Highway, Marsh Harbour; by 80 in the Farm near Treasure Cay, Abaco; by 13 in All Saints Way, New Providence; and by 15 and 27 in the New Providence communities of Montgomery Road and Butlers Way.

 Government lawyers argued shanty town residents had adequate notice of the injunction, citing press statements and communications from government officials.

 “…I do not find that there is adequate evidence that anyone other than the parties to this action could be said to have properly had notice of the injunction,” CJ Winder said in his ruling. “The respondents took no steps in accordance with the rules, to substitute service of the injunction on persons who they say are/were unknown to them. A simple Order for the posting of the Orders on the doors of the residents, as was done to cause the additional occupants to attend court in this application, could have been obtained. Further, while there may have been press statements and notices placed in certain communities, this was not done with the authority of an Order for substituted service.”

 “It is only persons who can be fixed with notice of the Order that could be said to have been in breach. The broadcasting of the information or its general distribution could not properly suffice.”

 Nonetheless, CJ Winder said two people, Rose St. Fleur and Aviole Francois-Burrows, were aware of the injunction Order, having consented to it.

 “I am satisfied that (their) breach is willful,” he wrote.

 He said while the power to demolish buildings that fail to comply with the building code rests with the Minister of Works, the Supreme Court can enforce a court order by ordering the demolition of a structure constructed in defiance of that court order.

 “In a case such as this, where the Order of the Court is being openly flouted, the administration of justice is being brought into disrespect and disrepute,” he wrote. “The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to protect its process and I am satisfied that the Court is empowered to cause those applicants who have breached the Order to remove these offending structures.”

 CJ Winder ordered that Ms St. Fleur and Ms Francois-Burrows’ “offending structures” be removed within 45 days, failing which the government may remove them at the expense of the women.

 Yesterday, Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis said he had not studied CJ Winder’s ruling.

 “We’ll abide by that decision unless it is overturned,” he said.

 Works and Utilities Minister Alfred Sears, chairman of the Unregulated Communities Action Task Force, declined to comment on the ruling.