The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A FORMER senior police officer named in a US federal indictment over alleged cocaine trafficking has won permission to challenge his dismissal from the Royal Bahamas Police Force, after a Supreme Court judge ruled that Commissioner Clayton Fernander may have acted unlawfully in firing him without due process.

Prince Albert Symonette, who served in the RBPF for more than 30 years, was discharged on December 12, 2024, after news reports that he was among 11 Bahamian men in a high-profile US federal indictment alleging drug and firearm-related offences.

The indictment accused Bahamian officials and others of facilitating drug trafficking operations, alleging that traffickers used The Bahamas as a transit point for smuggling large quantities of cocaine into the United States with the help of Bahamian officials.

Last month, former Royal Bahamas Defence Force chief petty officer Darrin Alexander Roker, 56, pleaded guilty in a New York court for his role in the scheme and faces up to 20 years in prison.

It is unclear whether Mr Symonette has been the subject of any extradition request proceedings related to that case.

According to court documents, Mr Symonette, represented by attorney Bjorn Ferguson, said he was summoned to a meeting at police headquarters by the then-Commissioner, where he was stripped of his warrant card, firearm certificate and service weapon before being handed a discharge certificate dated December 2 — ten days before the meeting occurred.

In his affidavit, Mr Fernander said Mr Symonette’s one-year contract had expired and that senior executives unanimously decided not to renew it because of the controversy surrounding the US indictment. He said the decision was made because the allegations against the officer had created “negative public views directed at the Police Force.”

However, Justice Bazard noted that both sides agreed no hearing had taken place and that Mr Symonette was not given the opportunity to appeal before being dismissed. The judge said there was a clear statutory framework requiring officers to be given notice and a chance to respond before being discharged for inefficiency or public interest reasons.

Citing Regulation 42 of the Police Disciplinary Regulations, she said the Commissioner was required to first report the matter to the Secretary to the Cabinet, who would then inform the officer in writing and allow him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. Only after this process could a recommendation for discharge be made to the Governor General.

Justice Bazard found that this procedure appeared to have been ignored. She referred to the landmark 1964 English case Ridge v Baldwin, in which the House of Lords ruled that a police officer’s dismissal without a hearing was void for violating natural justice.

“The First Defendant was bound to observe the principles of natural justice by giving him an opportunity of being heard, and they had not done so,” Justice Bazard said, quoting from Ridge v Baldwin. “This condition precedent goes to the heart of the matter.”

The judge noted that the decision to discharge Mr Symonette seemed to have been made in advance of the meeting, as the discharge certificate was already stamped and dated ten days earlier.

She also observed that while the Commissioner had described the officer’s service as “unsatisfactory,” there was no evidence that any formal disciplinary process had been initiated or that the officer had been notified of charges against him.

Government lawyers argued that Mr Symonette had an alternative remedy under Section 21(2) of the Police Act, which allows an aggrieved officer to appeal to the Governor General within seven days of dismissal. They said he should have exercised that option before turning to the courts.

But Justice Bazard found there were “exceptional circumstances” justifying judicial review, saying the Commissioner’s failure to follow the statutory and procedural requirements could render the dismissal “a nullity.”

“I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is an arguable case that the claimant was not afforded due process and the decision itself may have been taken without proper regard for the First Defendant's obligations,” she wrote. “On the face of it, it appears that the First Defendant paid no heed to his statutory obligations.”

She ruled that the case met the threshold for judicial review and that the delay in filing — four months after dismissal — was within the six-month legal limit.

Mr Symonette, who joined the RBPF in July 1994 and became pensionable in 2019, is seeking declarations that his dismissal was unlawful and unconstitutional, along with compensation for loss of salary since December 2024.