People in democratic countries generally take comfort in the axiom that “no man is above the law”. But the rule of Premier Michael Misick of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) is systematically disabusing us of this comfort.
 |
|
Anthony L. Hall is a descendant
of the Turks & Caicos Islands,
international lawyer and political
consultant - headquartered in
Washington DC - who publishes
his own weblog, The iPINIONS
Journal, at http://ipjn.com
offering commentaries on
current events from a
Caribbean perspective
|
Therefore, when our Attorney General, Hon. Kurt de Freites, strained credulity to dismiss assault and theft charges against the Premier, it only added legal insult to our political discomfort.
I beg you to recall (or refer to) my 20 July article entitled A wannabe gangsta... perhaps, but Premier Misick is no genocidal Mugabe. Because in it, I delineated the issues of national importance that were raised when opposition MP Hon. Arthur Robinson reported to the police that the Premier had assaulted him. Never mind the Premier’s attempt to reduce resolution of them to a national farce by reporting to his Party’s de facto newspaper of record that he feared Mr Robinson and other members of the Loyal Opposition were conspiring to kill him.
But, until this week, I would have defied any reasonable person to deny the gravity of this matter or the categorical imperative that it be resolved consistent with the rule of law. Therefore, I am profoundly disappointed that Tuesday’s press statement, which summarizes Mr de Freites’ decision, made a mockery of the charges against the Premier in both respects.
For starters, he advised the Commissioner of Police, Edward C. Hall, that Mr Robinson’s allegation that he was assaulted and the Premier’s counterclaim that he fears for his life are, in fact, much ado about nothing:
A prosecution is... unwarranted on public interest grounds... Neither of them, it appears, suffered any harm... A prosecution against the Premier... is likely to be blown grossly out of proportion to the alleged offence of common assault and, in addition, such a trial may undermine the justice system.
But I am constrained to advise Mr de Freites that if the president of the United States (Bill Clinton) can be prosecuted for allegedly telling a common white lie, then the premier of the TCI should be prosecuted for allegedly assaulting an Honourable Member of Parliament.
Moreover, I am concerned about the message his advice will convey -- not only to young men in this country (too many of whom are already inclined to wanton assaults) -- but also to other victims (too many of whom are already disinclined to report such crimes). Indeed, Mr de Freites may have committed gross misfeasance here: Because his suggestion that people should have no fear of being prosecuted for committing assaults -- as long as no one suffers any (physical) harm -- will undoubtedly undermine the justice system (and respect for the rule of law).
Mr de Freites then advised the police against filing theft charges by proffering patently specious reasoning that is even more egregious and irresponsible. In fact, in this context, he comes across more like a defense attorney making technical arguments to keep his client out of jail, than as an attorney general vindicating the personal-property rights of an aggrieved citizen:
The evidence discloses that at the time the camera was taken, there was no intention by Mills [the Premier’s bodyguard] to permanently deprive the owner thereof. A charge of theft of the camera would therefore not be justified in such circumstances.
Never mind that no one who knows anything about this case ever suspected that it was the Premier’s intention to have his bodyguard steal the video camera. Instead, we suspected that it was his intention to erase all evidence of his alleged crime that was caught on it!
But, even assuming Mr de Freites’ tortured logic, it hardly furthers “public interest” for an attorney general to suggest that if a young man steals a car, no criminal charges will be filed -- as long as he claims that he had no intention to permanently deprive the owner thereof...
Which brings me brings me back to his circular reasoning against filing assault charges:
In the absence of any independent or corroborative evidence to assist in the determination of which version may be true, the Chambers did not think it fair, or appropriate to select one version over another as being in order to found a prosecution.
Alas, this quote makes it painfully clear not only that Mr de Freites failed to perform his duties as attorney general, but also that he has no clue what his duties are. In fact, his decision reads like the delusional rationalizations of a neo-colonial regent who fancies himself defense attorney, prosecutor, judge and jury!
Frankly, I feel obliged to observe the mercy rule at this point. After all, any third-rate lawyer could write a treatise exposing the legal fallacies and untenable public-policy implications inherent in Mr de Freites’ advice. But there seems no legal or political merit in doing so.
Therefore, I shall dismiss his press statement with the following observations:
- Just as Bill Clinton was prosecuted, not so much for getting a blowjob as for committing perjury and obstructing justice; so too should Michael Misick have been prosecuted, not so much for assaulting Mr Robinson or stealing a camera as for abusing his power and perverting the course of justice.
- It is an affront to all TCIslanders for Mr de Freites to dismiss this as a “common assault case”. Because we all know that it was (and remains) all about our Premier’s abuse of his power.
- It behooves Dr Misick to appreciate that instead of vindicating his claims, Mr de Freites’ decision actually indicts his leadership. (Meanwhile, I hope he and his bodyguards are taking appropriate security measures to foil the alleged conspiracy to assassinate him...)
Nevertheless, I hope Mr de Freites fully appreciates the potentially fatal crisis of confidence in the Attorney General’s office his handling of this matter has caused amongst TCIslanders.
NOTE: I appeal to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to query why his head of UK Overseas Territories, who is responsible for ensuring good governance, would publicly praise Premier Misick for our “flourishing economy”, but fail to admonish him in similar fashion about the lack of transparency in his government.
After all, it does not foster much regard amongst us for UK-TCI relations, when Lord Triesman visits to flatter the Premier for wresting constitutional powers from you, but fails to admonish him for abusing those powers in his dealings with us.
God help us...
Related Articles:
A wannabe gangsta... perhaps, but... |
