JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER:
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Thought To Ponder
Any government big enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take everything you've got
[ Legal ]
Lawyer Client Privilege and much more
16 June 2006
I read with interest Larry Smith's Tough Call article of May 24th, 2006, reviewing some of the issues arising out of the 11 Financial Laws introduced in December, 2000.
It also touches on the status of the Constitutional Action filed in December 2001 by Maurice Glinton and myself in response to those issues. The Bahamas Bar Association intervenes in that law suit.
Congratulations to Mr. Smith who once again presented opposing view points on an important subject. There was enough material there to generate some questions and public concerns.
One reservation however, is that TOUGH CALL's readers may have been left with the impression that the only substantive issue, is lawyer- client privilege: a concern of only lawyers and their clients.
This is not the case. At the risk of over-simplifying, I will attempt to summarize some issues the Plaintiffs allege arise out of the challenged package of legislation.
The Constitutional case is about this country. As citizens we allege that we have a right to expect our government of the day, whoever it may be, to act in accordance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional case asks the Court to determine whether the government has an obligation to defend the sovereignty of this jurisdiction, to pass laws consistent with the Constitution, and in the interest of the people of the Bahamas, in the sense that was the actuating interest for their passage.
It asks the Court to determine, whether the Constitution protects the citizens' fundamental rights as we understand them, or whether those rights cede to the executive's exercise of power as set out in the Financial Laws.
1. Do the laws violate the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution such as:
Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, similar financial laws have been challenged: laws which likewise purported to co-opt lawyers to aid in enforcing the laws through their legal practices. Those challenges have been successful, and the laws declared unconstitutional where they violated fundamental human rights. Are we in this part of the Commonwealth, somehow less human, and deserving of less rights?
The Financial Laws have been, and will be supplemented by "guidelines" passed on to "Financial Institutions" through the Compliance Commission of The Bahamas, from the FATF, the financial arm of the OECD. The OECD is an overseas organization representing the developed countries. The guidelines are not laws or regulations passed by our Parliament, but in practice set standards and procedures by which "compliance" is to be measured. These can be a moving goal-post. The Bahamas Compliance Commission reports to the FATF and /or the Caribbean FATF.
This situation is alluded to in the interview of Mr. James Smith, Minister of State for Finance, in the Tribune of May 30th, 2006. Minister Smith, referred to 'regulatory standards ..... constantly evolving.' Minister Smith further commented on the OECD's latest report on "compliance" issues, as follows: "It's been an argument that has been made in the Bahamas for some time, that we have gone 'way beyond' the OECD countries, which is why it is so important to insist on a level playing field.'"
If our Government is using that argument against the OECD, why is it vigorously defending this Constitutional Action, which likewise seeks to preserve for our citizens, and persons in this jurisdiction, the level playing field on fundamental human rights? And at an enormous cost, first to the taxpayers of this country, as well as the Plaintiffs and the few citizens who have provided support.
The Constitution grants citizens, and others in the Bahamas, the right to a presumption of innocence, a fair trial by an independent court, protection of person and property from unwarranted searches and seizures, and a right to give and receive information relating to his private affairs in confidence.
We allege that the financial laws would deny those constitutional rights in certain instances.
The Constitution sets out a system of checks and balances against the executive's misuse of power. Do the Financial Laws represent a misuse of power, and will the Constitution afford protection?
The over-riding question however, is whether we are prepared to face the challenge to fundamental rights now: whether we have sufficient moral constitution to preserve our legal Constitution.
Or whether we are just simple occupants of the Islands in the Stream ( but less and less owners of the land we occupy), flowing to the dictates of the strongest current of the day, in the naive belief that the qualities of a democratic society, until now enjoyed, will somehow be preserved for us, without any effort or sacrifice on our part.
30th May, 2006
The views expressed are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Nassau Institute (which has no corporate view), or its Advisers or Directors.
Want to blog about this post? Check out WeblogBahamas.com