EDITORIAL
It
was only a few weeks ago this newspaper carried an editorial in
which it made the point very clearly that in our parts of the world,
the name of the game is: "Different strokes for different folks".
The point has become more profane in light of the recent outburst
made by Legal Advisor to Cabinet, Hugh Wildman, the very controversial
Jamaican-born attorney-at-law who is challenging the decision of
the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLCS) not to recommend
him for appointment as the island's next Attorney General.
Mr. Wildman called a press conference a few days ago as is his right
to do in order to comment on the ruling made against him by high
court judge, Justice Davidson Baptiste in the JLCS matter. He clearly
attached the integrity of the judge in a very vulgar manner. This
is the kind of onslaught that is expected in the ghetto and other
in high places.
The Wildman behaviour was quite disgusting and amounted to an attempt
to not only belittle the judge but to make ordinary John Public
conclude that he/she will not get a free and fair hearing before
the Learned Trial Judge.
This newspaper clearly formed the opinion that Mr. Wildman was telling
the public that the judge ruled against him because of the support
that he (Justice Baptiste) got from the President of the Grenada
Bar Association, Ruggles Ferguson in a problem that the judge was
having with the constant late payment of his salary.
In effect what Mr. Wildman was saying is that if John Public provided
the said judge with a gift of mangoes then Justice Baptiste could
be bought by John Public over a mere pittance of five mangoes. How
disgusting and childish!!!
If we put it plainly, the Legal Advisor to Government was portraying
the judge as someone who would deliver a judgment in favour of anyone
who came to his assistance. It is clear to us that Mr. Wildman was
trying to paint Justice Baptiste as one who is on the take and open
to accepting bribes.
And this is the same Hugh Wildman who is quick to institute criminal
libel proceedings against others to satisfy his political masters
over a letter someone wrote about bribery in the 1999 general elections.
We can also see the fingerprints of the Jamaican Pit bull of the
NNP in the latest attempt by the Royal Grenada Police Force (RGPF)
to get the Editor of GRENADA TODAY at all cost in the Clythie Redhead
matter. The Keith Mitchell government needs to clear the air on
the statement made at the same press conference by Mr. Wildman about
the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the Privy Council in London.
As legal adviser to the Cabinet, Mr. Wildman plays a key role in
Grenada's position vis-à-vis the CCJ. It is the same Mitchell
government, which is piloting legislation through Parliament to
make the CCJ the final court of appeal in our part of the world.
Mr. Wildman cannot continue to enjoy the fruits of the State when
he is walking on a different path from the political directorate
on the CCJ. As Lloyd Noel pointed out in his column this week: "Now,
in any normally functioning Governmental structure in a true democracy
- either the Advisor (Wildman) should tender his resignation from
his very sensitive and influential position, or the Powers-that-be
should have demanded it without further ado.
"But so far a deathly silence prevails all around the controversial
happenings over the past week - since that Judgment from the High
Court was announced". It will not surprise us if Mr. Wildman
was not publicly stating the true position of Prime Minister Mitchell
and his Cabinet on the issue.
For those who have very short memories, we wish to take them back
to statements made by former Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. Raphael
Fletcher on the reaction of Prime Minister Mitchell whenever then
high court judge and not President of the OECS Court of Appeal ruled
in matters involving his government.
It was always: "Alleyne Again!!! Alleyne Again!!!" and
to put his face in such a manner to suggest that the judge was playing
with fire. Is it any wonder that the same judge had to suffer at
the hands of the State when he needed a refrigerator in order to
replace the one that had gone bad in his state-funded home?
The judge was forced to use the facilities of a friend in Grenada
to put his meat and other perishables because some inside the Mitchell
government did not consider the replacement of his fridge "a
priority item".
It is always a case of "different strokes for different folks".
|
