(Statement) After weeks of media reports, public speculations and police investigations into the alleged judicial misconduct of V. Alfred Gray, the office of the Attorney General (AG) has decided not to press formal charges against any of the parties concerned. The decision which was announced via a statement issued during the height of Junkanoo carnival excitement was clearly an attempt to sneak the erroneous decision under the radar.

Outside of its flawed timing, the decision by the AG represents yet another squandered opportunity by this Christie led government to do the right thing. Since taking office, this administration has flouted the Rule of Law at every turn, creating a culture of corruption within government. This disappointing but unsurprising decision is indicative of the lack of political will which the government has consistently shown especially when dealing with those from within its own ranks. After failing to act on countless different occasions though, the AG was presented with a unique opportunity to restore public faith in the country’s systems of governance. Instead of using that opportunity to its advantage, the Christie government has instead discarded the tenants enshrined within the constitution relative to the fundamental rule of separation of powers.

In her statement, the AG defined the evidence produced by that police investigation as being of a “‘ conflicting nature’” and asserted that her decision is an effort to preserve the “‘fairness and the integrity of all trial proceedings’”. This though, is nothing more than a carefully crafted smoke screen designed to shield the truth from the eyes of the Bahamian people. THE LAW IS BLACK AND WHITE.

As with all judicial matters, it is the job of the prosecutor – in this case the AG’s office – to determine based on the available evidence if a law was broken, and in cases where the law has in fact been broken, take steps to bring the law breakers to justice. In this matter, both parties involved tell very different accounts of what transpired. THE EVIDENCE available however – the fact that a convicted suspect was set free outright - shows incontrovertibly that a law was broken.

In fact, it was Gray’s own words which condemned him from the very start. By his own admission, Gray proceeded to call an Island Administrator – who was at the time acting as a Magistrate – in his constituency to, as he put it, discuss the options available to him regarding the release of the individual. The Minister’s actions were clearly an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Though acting as a Magistrate in this particular matter, the Island Administrator is part of a government agency which falls under the direct purview of Minister Gray: Local Government. That said, the Minister HAD TO KNOW, that any suggestions made by him would carry significant weight. In fact in comments to the media, the Magistrate intimated that he perceived Gray’s phone calls on the matter as an ORDER coming forth and later stated that he felt intimidated into making that decision. For Gray to feign ignorance of the influence his position in government afforded him is disingenuous.

If for the sake of argument, the AG’s office found the evidence against Gray un-compelling then it would stand to reason that the Island Administrator should and would be held responsible as the final decision to release the convict came from him. BOTH MEN CANNOT BE WITHOUT FAULT. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT SOMEONE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. The Attorney General’s decision is not only a disappointment to the thousands of citizens who respect and value the Rule of Law, but also proves that this administration is prepared to BEND and BREAK the law to protect their friends, family members and lovers.

This blatant miscarriage of justice is yet another reason why the office of the AG should operate as a body completely independent of the government of the day. As this case clearly demonstrates, having the AG sit as a functioning member of cabinet is an obvious conflict of interest which often forces the individual in that position to choose between executing the LAW or protecting the government of which he or she is a part.

When the Democratic National Alliance is elected, we pledge to implement the necessary legislative changes which would ensure the autonomy and independence of the AG’s office, leaving it free and clear to pursue the necessary legal action against ANY and ALL government ministers found to be in contravention of the law.

The actions of the AG’s office also further underscores the need for the introduction of the Office of the Ombudsman. This position, for which the DNA has long been an advocate, is one which exists in governments the world over and is responsible for assisting various communities in their dealings with government agencies. Such an office would act independently and impartially. The Office of the Ombudsman would investigate complaints against government agencies and undertake inspections of those entities offering feedback and training with a view to encouraging good governance and good administration.

In this matter, Lee Atwater’s famous quote applies: PERCEPTION IS REALITY. In matters of law, justice must not only be done but must also be PERCEIVED as being done. The Minister’s actions created the perception that yet again, a government official has used his position and influence to intervene in matters where he should not. The Attorney General’s findings in relation to this matter have CEMENTED that perception.

The AG’s decision sets a dangerous precedent which threatens the very foundation upon which our democracy is built. In the interest of JUSTICE, GOOD GOVERNANCE and the RULE OF LAW, the DNA calls for the AG to not only release the findings of the police investigations into the public domain but reverse her decision and ensure that those involved be made to FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!

Branville McCartney

DNA Leader