(This letter by Leandra Esfakis was published in the Tribune recently in response to an article by Alesha Hart complaining about public indifference to the victims of crime.)
Dear Ms Hart:
Your article of last week speaks eloquently of the deafening national silence. You say that by our silence, and failure to attend the candlelight ceremony on June 15, to honour the victims of crime, we disrespected the memory of fallen victims and tomorrow's victims as well.
A candlelight ceremony is a symbol of sorrow, respect, and hope - for an effective response to the issues which create victims of crime. And poor attendance would indicate that perhaps we as a people are not caring enough to step outside our comfort zones, and honour those who have fallen.
I do believe, however, that we are caring. But what do we care about? And do we have the conviction and courage to defend what we should care about - at least our lives? Or is that we have no expectation of a better tomorrow, because we know that we put into positions of power, persons who are no more than a reflection our own weaknesses, and when tested are unable to rise above those weaknesses.
And so I would like to offer an answer to the last haunting question you raised: "I wonder who will speak clearly if something happens to me?"
The answer, in a democratic society, is that the judicial system should speak clearly for you. You have a right to the safety of your person and property. Failing that, a right to a complete police investigation, and a competent prosecution of any alleged crime against you, before an impartial judge, and a jury of your peers.
You have right to a verdict, or order of the court, in accordance with the evidence given and the law that applies, within a reasonable time. You have a right to have that judgment or order signed by the Judge who made it, and enforced by the appropriate authorities. That is what our constitution and laws guarantee you, as a person within this jurisdiction.
But if I understand your point. It is that silence gives consent...and lawlessness prevails with impunity.Your point is well taken, and impunity is the crux of the issue. The following case is an example of how impunity comes about.
A 42-year-old man dies unexpectedly in hospital. Five years later, a coroner's inquest is held to determine the circumstances of his death. The verdict states the man died of natural causes, with a substantial contribution of gross neglect by the medical staff of that hospital.
A doctor offended by that verdict has his attorney sue the coroner. The doctor applies to the Supreme Court for judicial review of the verdict (a form of appeal). The coroner is represented by the Attorney General's Office. The judge makes an order that the verdict of the coroner's court is quashed, a new inquest must be held, and the doctor must be paid his legal costs.
A year later, it appears the judge has not signed the order he made. It also appears that the officials concerned take the position that it cannot be enforced until it is signed by the judge.
One can only speculate as to why no action has been taken by either party to these proceedings (the doctor or the Attorney General's office) to have the order signed. The net result at this point is that the doctor is not paid his costs, and there is no date for a new inquest.
There is a principle in law that the court does not act in vain. But in this case, it would appear that the doctor's application has resulted in a nullity - ie nothing happens, because there is no signed order. No costs are paid, no new inquest held. Does it also mean that the "offending" verdict still stands?
In another matter concerned with the same man's death, one of the doctors concerned obtained an ex-parte injunction against the Medical Council. This injunction prevents the Medical Council from investigating the complaint of improper conduct against him.
Again, the Attorney General's office is a party to that matter, representing the Medical Council. The judge has ordered the injunction against the Council to remain in place until there is a hearing. But it appears that neither counsel for the doctor, nor the AG's office has obtained a date for a hearing of the doctor's claim against the Council.
With no hearing date, and thus no determination of the claim against the Medical Council, the injunction could remain in place indefinitely. This situation is considered "extraordinary" in terms of how the legal system ought to work - at least in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
And so the Medical Council could continue to license, indefinitely, a doctor they are prohibited from evaluating, regardless of the outstanding complaint against that doctor. Again, "extraordinary" is the understatement that applies. This makes a sham of the Medical Council’s obligation to evaluate their professionals in the public interest.
This case illustrates the old adage, that when “good men” stand by, and do nothing, ….there are those who secure immunity from the laws that should apply. Is this what our government administration and judiciary intend? It is a scenario which begs your question: "I wonder who will speak clearly if something happens to me?"
Well, if our local judicial system fails, and you have the money, perseverance, and the right legal counsel, you can get to ask the Privy Council in London to speak for you. But that is not the answer that we should have to look to, as a first and last resort.
The Bahamian judicial system, supported by your contributions to the Public Treasury, should speak clearly for you. Do not denounce your citizenship. Instead I urge you to continue to eloquently denounce the neglect and abuse of our rights as citizens and residents, and reclaim our duty to speak for each other.
But it appears, as you rightly say, we are the sons and daughters of silence.
My generation and older, are now in positions of power. We are the children of an earlier unfortunate era, where we learned we could ignore wrongs, and those who are wronged. And we failed to honour the Westminster system of addressing those wrongs, for whatever reasons.
But my generation will pass away, and we have more young people educated as to their rights and obligations as citizens. Along with that, we have a free press. We have multiple media channels. We, and those of tomorrow, can be as well informed as we choose to be. And we can make better choices of those we elect, those holding public office, and those invited to preside on the judicial bench.
Quality governance does not mean electing those with the most degrees, the most charisma, the best political tribal support, or the biggest beer-fest election party. We can put into positions of authority, those whose are qualified by the nature of their convictions, their vision for the people, ability for the job, and courage to follow through.
Then Ms Hart, you will have someone to speak clearly for you.
Comments