Editor’s note: The following article was first published in The Chronicle and is being republished with permission.
Irony of ironies: the man who has twice taken the oath as Chief Executive of Dominica, involving a solemn oath to uphold the laws and constitution of Dominica, has found it necessary or expedient to hide behind the “protection against self-incrimination” doctrine in relation to the question of whether he is qualified or not, under the very constitution that he is solemnly sworn to protect and uphold, to hold the office of member of Parliament and Prime Minister (he is not qualified for the latter unless he is qualified for the former).
What is “self-incrimination”? The law dictionary defines it as “describing oneself as being involved in the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing.” For good reason, the law provides that a person accused of a crime cannot be forced to give evidence at his trial for that crime. By section 3(1) of the Perjury Act, Cap. 10:30 of the Revised Laws of Dominica 1990, any person who, being required by law to swear an oath, and who “knowingly, willfully and corruptly, upon such oath, swears to or makes any false statement as to such fact, matter or thing”, is guilty of willful and corrupt perjury.
Where a person, in the course of a trial before a court, depends upon the protection against self-incrimination to avoid answering to a summons to appear and give evidence in a matter, is it reasonable to infer that that person is aware that if he were to give evidence he would be exposing himself to the danger of “describing himself as being involved in the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing”?
It is in fact precisely to protect a person involved in the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing from the danger of incriminating himself that the law provides for the protection.
The irony is that a person who has sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the laws and the constitution of Dominica should find himself placed in the position of having to resort to the protection against self incrimination, especially in relation to the very oath he has sworn, to uphold and protect the laws and constitution of Dominica.
By section 32 of the Constitution, a person is disqualified from membership of Parliament if he is by virtue of his own act under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. The Citizenship Act, Chap. 1:10, at section 2, defines “foreign country” as a country (other than the Republic of Ireland) that is not part of the Commonwealth.
This Act came into effect on the 3rd November 1978, the same date on which our Constitution took effect, and would govern the interpretation of the Constitution. Thus France, not being part of the Commonwealth, is a foreign state.
May it be inferred that Mr. Skerrit sought the protection of the doctrine against self incrimination because he was aware that to give evidence under oath, he would either have to admit that he was, by his own act, on the principle of Vaz, under acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state, or to commit the offence of perjury by denying that allegation? How does that sit with his declaration that no law, no constitution, would prevent him from being nominated as a candidate in the December 2009 election? Interesting question indeed!
Some may ask, what is the relevance of what I discuss next? Are we not a secular society? Indeed we are! Nevertheless, we also cannot forget that our very Constitution, in its very first preamble, declares that “the People (note the capital P, deliberately inserted by the framers to emphasise that we are speaking solemnly, through our constitution, as what my Parliamentary representative often describes as a collective) of Dominica acknowledge the supremacy of God.”
I reflect on the eternal question, the eternal conversation; “I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth, and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.” “Truth?” said Pilate, “What is that?” (Gospel of John 18:37&38).
I call this the eternal question, the eternal conversation, because it is the question and the conversation that mankind has been having from the fall (Genesis, the beginning), to the present time and will be having until the end, and it is the question and the conversation that we in Dominica have been pondering most intensely in the last two years.
We have not yet answered it, either at the personal level or as a nation. It is vital for the future of our country that we have an answer, to particular questions as well as to the general question asked by Pilate. Our political leaders, our church leaders, our youth leaders, our educators, our intellectuals, and our society at large, and each of us individually, must engage in that conversation and must answer the question.
Having answered it for ourselves, do we as a people demand that our chief executive must speak truth to us? I lay that question before us for debate and determination.
CLICK HERE TO READ RESPONSE BY SENIOR COUNSEL
I also find it strange that the learned justice is appealing to the court of public opinion in a matter before the court and then asks his public to apply a standard that, as a judge, he would have to advise any jury in his court not to do. A jury is not so assume anything from a defendant’s decision not to testify. Whatever value this article may have, I fear it does more harm than good to the work of the courts in Dominica.
BRI IS THE GUY.YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT TO RETURN TO POLTICS TODAY TO PUT DOMINICA BACK ON THE MAP.
“LET’S GO BRIAN LETS GO ”
YOU HAVE A LOT OF INTEGRITY AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
Clowns to the left jokers to the right.Sour grapes sir, sour grapes. As a learned man it’s unfortunate that thatyour biases have blinded your knowledge of the law. You sir, as well as the prime ministerand la pray choochoote are afforded the same rights under the constitution. Why then is it wrong for one to invoke such rights? Note: neither blue, red or green. I am Rasta, red, yellow, green, black and white. I am Dominican.
A good oped for discussion. The motives of Mr. Alleyne will always be questioned not because of the content of the article, as I believe it is a good article. However Mr. Alleyne, who is a former acting cheif justice and politician fails to mention in his good article that this ongoing legal action, is due to the fact that the UWP failed at the last election and they are trying to remove this government by any means. That is truth to power. The UWP is attempting to use the courts to correct their failure at the polls. This article by Mr. Alleyne is cunningly timed, perhaps to influence the court. Just asking…..
Remember the DlP CAMPAIGN SLOGAN,VOTE SKERRIT HE IS GOOD LOOKING.Do dominicans believe dominicans who voted for the dlp will understand any thing about laws and constitution,they will never understand to decern from politics,individuals and goverment.I want the dominicans who fail to understand that a goverment is there as employes of a country not the citizen’s being employes of the goverment.Why can’t dominicans suport a party during campaign time to the fullest after that time it’s time to keep the goverment in check,not the party but the goverment.So stop makeing this a party thing but a goverment thing.When the PM goes to take loans from other countries or donor oganizations do you think he signs as labour party so if dominica cannot payback we the labour party will pay back NO,it’s the dominican people who will pay back that loan.Do you all think for a minute when a goverment comes a says to you pay more taxes is to develop the country,oh no it’s to be able to repay the very said loans.So continue shouting labour or who ever you want to shuot for,but allways remember the will allways have food on their table.will you.
Do we set at naught the expression of ideals we, as Dominicans, have set ourselves simply because of who is attempting to disregard those ideals? Frankly, does it have to take the Former Chief Justice to convince us that our Constitution is being disregarded by a man who swore allegience to it? Woe unto you, my countrymen, for sitting idly by while our Constitution is treated as if it is written in pencil.
i support you SIR 100% you must get into contact with all the other brains to remove them
I wonder who really believes that Skerrit will come out the loser in all of this. If the the judge finds against him she will either declare him to be disqualified or vacate the seat and call for a by-election. Nothing will happen until the Court of Appeals rules. The bottom line is that in any new election no one can prevent Skerrit from offering himself as a candidate. If the seat is given to the runner-up Skerrit can dissolve parliament as his last official act before he resigns. I hate to think the UWP thinks it can run an election campaign on this issue alone.
what i am saying is that the rest of the dlp should ask this man to step down…and preserve the party……i just watching them…..if they make me lose all faith in the DLP then it is their loss because i see no opposition worthy of my vote, but i not giving my vote to labour until skerrit is out!!!
That piece of advice is not entirely unwise.
WE POSTING AS WIKILEAKS…AS HE POST WE POSTING…HE IS DLP AND I AM WORKERS…WE CONFUSING HIM. HE DON”T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE POSTING NOW
We just love to crucify the messenger… It does not appear to me that Mr. Alleyne is implying that the court should ignore one section of the constitution while paying heed to the other. I think this article was written to educate and enlighten the masses on the issue of ‘self incrimination’, a term that was unknown to most of us before the start of this case. Also, I think he hoped to stimulate thought about the obvious irony of the situation.
Here it is that our PM has sworn to “protect and uphold” the constitution, and on the other hand his eligibility to hold office, determined by that same constitution, is now in question. Further, he is relying on the protection provided by the self incrimination clause of that very constitution…!
If you’re unable to see the irony in this matter, then by all means keep on arguing and lashing out.
Mr. Alleyne,
You and the UWP set the rules when they took the PM and St Jean to court knowing fully well there were person(s) in your party that were guilty of the same offense. You sir, failed to take up issue with Ron Green although he was guilty of the same crime you are accusing the DLP ministers of. It has been the practice in DA politics for years now and it was ok. Mr. James went on to say that he considered Ron Green a Dominican. Why are we changing the rules based on who commits the offense? Instead of adressing issues you all sought to use political rhetoric to try and unseat the PM. Is the PM wrong to play the game the way you all are playing? You all are plying political games;arguing what is legally right and legally wrong, why should the PM not do the same? Now you all are crying foul because he is playing the same game that you all are playing. Never heard the saying-two can play the same game. Talking about ethics, morality and integrity you all should be the last people to cast the first stone. You all showed no class, no ethics and no integrity by taking the PM to court for something that you have been doing for years. The best course of action would have been to address the issue through dialougue and come to a solution which both parties agree on not political rhetoric and biasness. If you realize that I have been using the word you referring to you and the UWP it’s because sir, you have shown your political biasness. Now, suddenly, you all want to question people’s integrity and morals. You should have started by advising UWP that taking the DLP ministers to court for something that we have been doing for years is somewhat hipocritical. You cannot change the rules in the middle of a game. It is just not fair. You all are not fighting for the betterment of Dominica; you all main mantra is to get rid of the PM at all cost. Now, with an attitude like that, how can The Dominican masses feel confortable with an administration like that. Your main problem is that you all have no plans to improve Dominica. Although you all have some valid arguments you choose not to pursue these issues but to seek to destroy the PM instead. Somehow I just cannot see the self righteousness, ethics and morality you all keep talking about. Give it a rest, and keep Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King and the rest out of it. There is simply no comparison.
I think you’re way off. Please re-read Alleyne’s article.
nope you didn’t get it at all….no offence intended, but get a dictionary and look up the meaning of Irony, then read the commentary again in this context and try not to get too emotional about it..
Dear Admin when a comment is posted is there some automatic device which tells one that they are posting comments too quickly? even if the person have just posted one comment? Please enlighten me, because I am reading many comments from individuals on the same topic.
ADMIN: It is a glitch with our web host system. We’ve been asking out hosts to solve it, but obviously it is continuing. We shall alert them again. If the message appears, refresh the page, then click “retry” when the new window pops up. Keep doing this until your comment finally goes through. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks, I appreciate your prompt response. I will do just that
What strikes me is the fact that the learned justice did not interpret Genesis for himself. Instead he relied on the testimony of others that there was a fall in Genesis. This is unacceptable from a legal perspective and places the rest of the article in question.
LololOLol my boy u need to read ALOT more.
Wiki, how will reading more change the fact that the learned justice did not interpret the text for himself?
Isn’t it ironic, that the same Constitution Dominicans are asking the PM to obey, is the same Constitution which they are crying about decision to use…smh. It is ironic – i do agree…but Dominicans are crying, begging, asking that the Constitution be obeyed, so the PM’s choice to use the follow the law can’t be held against him.
Granted that he is in court for ALLEGEDLY violating it, but that’s why he is in court – so that the court, not the public, can enforce the Laws of the land. Allegedly, or inferences cannot be the basis for any crime.
Yes, I agree, to the average Joe…it can be inferred that persons who choose to invoke the clause against self incrimination may have more to hide that someone who doesn’t… however, it is not inherently probable that this is the case…..
The judge MUST NOT decide the case simply on inferences. The judge MUST NOT take that same Constitution which she is trying to protect and enforce and use it as a weapon…
If the evidence fits…then the Judge must find him GUILTY…if the evidence doesn’t fit….then he must be found INNOCENT.
The issue has been brought to the court of Law…we should not be so fast to expect the judge to rule base on INFERENCES. the Law doesn’t work that way….an assumption of guilty is not a FACT of guilt
Thank for that one!
Why the dislike on this post. Curious is much more objective than Alleyne Carbon…ouch I mean Brian Alleyne for the Mahaut Constituency…lol
the truth shall set PM free, his innocence is his burden it seems?
WHAT IS TRUTH? Such a timely question. 1. Truth is our religious leaders standing up for righteousness at ALL times against ALL immorality without impartiality. 2. Truth is our leaders of Governments carrying out their God given responsibilities to govern the country free from fear, favour, political victimization, illegal accumulation of wealth, impartiality, ridicule, vulgarism. 3. Truth is the media houses seizing to use the media for character assassination, denigration of each other, unfair and biased statements, non researched information, exciting of violence among its people. 4. Truth is every Dominican born on this soil (woman, man, boy, girl) coming together for the good of the land without seeking fame or fortune. 5. Truth is being able to co-habit with each other in peace, love and harmony, looking out for each other, helping to build each other up. 6. Truth is being able to stand out against the evil and wrong doing of this land without being bracketed as being anti government or anti opposition. 7. Truth is using the Word of God not Status and Affiliations to define Righteousness and Sin. 8. Truth is your God given right to like or dislike what I have written after each reader has consciously examined his/herself.
The Constitution and the Bible, you take what suit you and you do not care about what suit the other.
God bless DA!
You a the man…true say.
It’s like an adulterer accusing a fornicator ….Roseau Chaud…
I can use the constituion to protect me from not abiding by the constituiton
And Eye for an Eye is in the Bible (The Old Testament—the Jews swear by that)
The New Testament…Turn the next cheek to be slapped again (The New Testament)…Skeritt follows this one.
Way Papa
tell the children the truth (BOB MARLEY) ” Babylon system is a vampire, deceiving the people continually”. IT is very nice for a responsible gentleman to show truth to power. Too many lies in my country.
Good job sir, thanks for your perspective. It is a total different story from what i am hearing from kairi fm..
what an irony!!!!!
we have questions to answer as a nation!!!!
This is just regurgitated garbage from a sour ex-politician who wants to be President.
No wonder the ex-PM of Grenada Dr. Keith Mitchel decided that ‘over his dead body’ this man could ever become Chief Justice of the ECSC.
This man has got to decide as to whether he wants to be remembered as a respected legal mind or just another bitter ex-politician who NEVER got his wish to be at the helm of governance of this country. While he still has an opportunity to salvage something from his obviously damaged legal status, he better forget about any political comeback, since there is no hope of a political return for this ‘moo moo’ who has miraculously, suddenly found his political voice again.
Sir Brian Alleyne is right. PM Skerrit could have made the petitioners’ case easier by presenting the French passport if he has any or by making himself available to answer questions relating to such matter.
Sir Alleyne also acknowleged that, in a court of law, it is the respondents right to avoid self incrimination. Chief Counsel, Tony Astaphan, on the other hand, is arguing his client’s right to remain silent as prescribed by law. He also argued the lack of evidence presented by the petitioners and the right of his client not to assist the petitioners in making their case and these arguments are also rooted in law and precedence. Thus far, the judge has agreed with him.
Many of the comments here presume that the PM is guilty and he would have to prove his innocence by presenting evidence or by denying accusations under oath. Sir Alleyne knows that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That was the basis upon which we demonstrated to free Desmond Trotter; a fight which Sir Brian spearheaded and coopted us from Grand Bay.
President Barack Obama was pressured by the Tea Party to present his birth certificate. He resisted even in the face of court challenges because it was not mandated by law. Only when it became a distraction and a drag on his economic plan,did he present it. Jesus was mocked, taunted , tried in a sham court and crucified but he never presented evidence to assist his accusers. Jesus was asked, “Are you the Messiah? Are you the Son of God? Can you perform miracles?” Did Jesus ever give a direct answer? He could have made the case easier for Pilate and his Roman thugs; couldn’t he? But he didn’t; even when the Apostle Paul denied Him!! PM Skerrit is no Messiah nor is Barack Obama, but the analogies are similar unless we are too blind to see or too preoccupied with PM Skerrit’s downfall.
Sir Brian Alleyne is also a politician and I believe that his commentary is calculated to influence the judge’s decision in the dual citizenship case.
Only when it became a distraction and a drag on his economic plan,did he present it.
HOW MUCH BIGGER A DISTRACTION IS THE PM WAITING FOR????
The PM is not waiting. He continues to work. President Obama’s economic plan is crippled by his congress and Wall Street.
UWP promised to make Brian the President of Dominica if they ever win an election.
If that is the case, then they could not have made a better choice because Sir Brian is what we call a true gentleman and statesman who will do what it takes to ensure that our constitution is respected. I was thinking of not voting in the next election but since you have made this worth comment, I will definitely come and vote UWP so that an honourable person like Sir Brian, could get an opportunity to teach Mr. Leverpool and others, how to serve with dignity and honour and keep our country curruption free.
This …..man got his knighthood from the government of Antigua and not from the queen of England.
He got it because MR ALLAN SANFORD was to be knighted by the government and as Acting Chief Justice of the O.E.C.S he was obligated to preside over the ceremony and hence had to be knighted.
I THINK THAT THIS FACT HAS TO BE STATED.
Now this is the level of writing I am expecting especially our youth and citizens of D/ca to read… lay the facts, quote the law to support and now we Dominicans form an opinion based on facts or fiction… Well written Sir Alleyne… I am not attempting to figure out whether the PM is guilty or not as the evidence must be brought to the court to prove so I won’t comment on that but I do know the way you presented this Article, is the format that DNO should be looking for on similar issues… Great work…
Would you say the same about peter,he said he never know jesus. When we don’t want to lose our life we sometimes don’t tell the truth.
Well written piece Sir. If Dominica could talk, one of Dominica’s sons has spoken with clarity.
God Bless Dominica.
Y don’t these detractors go and support tony’s piece instead of making a mockery of this honest and well articulated piece by Mr alleyne??? Kids its time to go home… You all making a whole leap of noise and refeshing you cookies and voting down peoples comments….that’s what captain paying allu to do??? With tax payers money at that???? Allu don’t love the DLP. Allu love skerritt!!!! Mmmmmmmm okay…
All that comes to mind is the old Kaiso, “De moo moo, de moo moo talking.”
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Well respected man!
One that is asking that we acknowledge one part of the constitution and turn a blind eye on the other.
this is a very enlightening, intellectually stimulating and soul searching article by Sir Brian. There is still hope for Dominica…….Truth crushed to Earth will rise again!!
I appreciate the mental stimulation!!
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
THE BULLWATCHDOG ALLREADY ANDWER!!!
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED!! YET TO BE ANSWERED!!
It is really disturbing and alarming, the lengths the leader of the country will go to never speak the truth. Why? Why are we worshiping a man who can never look the voters in their eyes and respond honestly to a question? Why? Why are we afraid to demand the truth from him? We put him in, we can remove him? He is a liar and he is taking over the country one household at a time.
By using the law to hide behind, he has proven that he can kick it to the curb and use it only when it suits him! Under any other law in the world Mr. Skerrit would have been forced to respond to the electorate and with a deadline at that. Why are Dominicans so willing to sell their souls for handouts???
Magway sa!!! Our forefathers didn’t fight for us to be free just so we could willingly allow ourselves to be mentally enslaved!!! We are depending on Skerrit for handouts while not demanding that he create employment opportunities. Everyday another Dominican buys a one-way ticket to go develop some other country. What will it take for us to open our eyes! Demand that the Prime Minister answer the people within a time frame. Answer all our questions because you are enjoying the good life at the expense of the poor, hardworking people who voted Roosevelt Douglas and the Labour Party in. You would have never been this important had not Roosevelt Douglas spoken to you and now you have thrown away everything the Labour Party has ever stood for.
I weep, I weep and I am ashamed that I played a part in electing you but in my pain (and countless others) time will tell. You can hide and lie for so long. Investigators need to be sent to the Cayman Islands, Zurich and everywhere else there are offshore banks to determine whether you have accounts there and whether there are any holdings in your family members’ names. God is not one to be mocked. With all the “God is Good”, he will smite you and make you walk in shame for making a joke of him.
THE CLOCK IS TICKING MR. SKERRIT!!!
Very outspoken sir you are graced with my utmost respect you are truly great indeed.
It is so shameful to listen to Brian Alleyne these days. This man has turned into another bitter politician. We all know that he is well loved within the UWP circle because any enemy of the DLP (Skerrit) is a friend of the UWP. All I will say is that Mr. Alleyne is appears to be getting as desperate as his friends in the UWP but in spite of his negativity this DLP government continues to deliver to the people of Dominica. Has Brian Alleyne and the UWP cabal ever offered any constructive criticism of the development taking place on the island? I guess they really can’t because with each new project their hopes of getting into office quickly become figment of their imagination. Good luck Mr. Alleyne in your quest to get rid of Mr. Skerrit but you have lost all your credibility in this country
Its a sad day when Brian Alleyne is reduced to a name called uwp and his association with goovy bat and lennox….mamo must be really saying now, “you see why I didn’t allow this man to be leader of the DFP!!!
For several months after Barrack Obama was elected president, a group of detractors known as “birthers” accused him of not being qualified to hold the office because he was born outside the US. Obama put a stop to it by doing something he did not have to do: he published his long form birth certificate so all of American and the world could see. If Skerrit were innocent, if he had nothing to hide, if he did not have and use a French passport, and if he cared about Dominica and the cost to. and toll this is taking on, the country, why won’t he do as Obama did? something to ponder.
Alas, don’t bring up Hope and Change with Barack Barack. I will keep the hope, he can keep his change
It was never argued that if the Prime Minister give evidence he will incriminate himself. We said that as a matter of the exercising of her discretion, the judge ought to consider whether there was a risk of prosecution and self-incrimination but the significant part of our case had nothing to do with self-incrimination but an application of the basic principles of burden of proof, standard of proof, whether or not there was evidence of French law which showed the Prime Minister or St Jean, by their own act, committed any act which could lead to their disqualification, by their own hands, under the provisions of the Constitution. And our case was that there was no such evidence before the court. That was the primary and the fundamental focus of our case.
will u stop being a boom boom fly and just repeating every thing tony says… use your intelligence… here tony and his defendants has a chance to put a slam dunk on this case by proving they don’t have french passport… don’t u think they’d show such evidence… u think skerro wants to go to court of appeals under the chief justice huh…. again my friend use your intelligence
Brian Alleyne is not the custodian of honesty nor truth.Not because he is a judge, makes him the bearer of truth. (Get that straight). I have quoted the law as it relates to everyone rights in the constitution…the same very constitution, we take parts of to further our cause.
So that being said, You, me, Skerrit, Brian Alleyne …all of us have the same rights under these constitution. I remembered Bill Clinto and in March 20, 1998, President Clinton decides to formally invoke executive privilege.
Brian Alleyne is not coming across as too bright and he has the other judges across the Caribbean questioning his motives…lol..Did around and you all will find out…lol
I wonder why Mamo saw it that Brian was not fit to lead the DFP and gave it to the other Alleyne????
mamo couldnt control sir brian thats why..she wanted to be pupet master and the only one she cud control in that way was the late alleyne carbon.
That is what is called double-talk, designed to confuse! Why dosen’t Tony speak the Queens English?
wiki and buwo…..I hope you didn’t quit your day job because it looking like that offshore company closing down….. And just when I decide to cross the floor we… Well at least captain doe have no heart for the rest of his ship man??? If he drowning the whole ship must sink too??? I tell allu it have nothing to do with party!! O I C
Buwo u will laugh for me yer!!! I hungry, PWC cannot pay they say govenment cannot disburse funds….
My dear friends, countrymen! When we access this case we must address a number of issues. One of the main issues is the question as to who is paying for the team defending the Prime Minister and his fellow minister; is it the defendants themselves? Is it the Labour Party? Or most importantly, is this long process at the expense of the tax payer, in which case the PM and the government by extension would be demonstrating to the tax payer that they have absolutely no regard for the monies belonging to the public purse! Let us look at this closely. If you were saddled with these accusations and you had the key bit of evidence, which could prove your innocence (according to your own assessment), in your hand, would you use the said law to withhold the use of that evidence deliberately in order to drag the case on? I don’t think so as, by doing so, you might be able to strike back at your accuser by taking him into a court battle which would cost him an exorbitant amount which he would rather save. However, in the same action, you would be causing yourself the same expense! Now if you are an honest politician who would like to save your party or the tax payers the expense in the event that you were privileged enough to have that expense covered by either of the two parties, you would be more than willing to present that key bit of evidence, your passport, if you thought that it was going to leave the case dead in the water. In other words, if you were convinced of your innocence, and paraded yourself as honest, you would do anything in your power to ensure that the truth be put forward in the form of your evidence, at an early stage in order to not have to take the matter to court resulting in undue and unjustifiable expense for your supporters or tax payers! I therefore submit that the actions of the holder of the office of PM and those of his minister, suggest that they would IN FACT be incriminating themselves in acts of illegality, were they to actually present their passport to the court and so they are IN FACT hiding behind this legal loophole which is normally used by those attempting to not assist the opposition in solidifying the case against them as defendants!!!!!!!!! ASK YOURSELVES THE QUESTION MY COUNTRYMEN……..IT IS IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!! May God bless our country and its people!!!!
Sir Brian, what a well-written piece. A piece destine to do what? The PM is before the court today because it is believe that he may have done something contrary to what the constitution dictates. The case was presented to the court and the court must decide. The same constitution protects each citizen of Dominica from unfair prosecution.
We have a justice system in which an accused has a choice to remain silent and his accuser must prove his case. This means that the accuser must provide the necessary evidence to the court in order to convict the accused. The accused is not required by law to provide any evidence to assist the accuser in proving his case. Sir Brian, a learned individual and a judge is insinuating that the PM is hiding behind the protection provided by the constitution. Are we asking to uphold the part of the constitution that is in our favor and to disregard that which is in favor of the other? I think that is the important question here.
We cannot continue to be so bias in our commentary. The Law is the Law. It must be maintained at all times. If the PM broke the law, he must be tried before a court who will decide whether or not he did. The accusers must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge in turn must convict or set the accused free. Let us all wait on the court ruling and don’t set a defense for if the ruling isn’t in our favor. We cannot be the accusers and the judge at the same time. A man cannot be guilty no matter what the ruling of the court is. Lets all respect the constitution.
We all know that Sir Brian has his political bias. I can recall during the Freedom Party era, Sir Brian and many other ministers were made to act Prime Minister in the absence of the Dame. On one occasion while the PM was away one of the ministers acting in her position had a piece of legislation changed. Once an individual was convicted for a crime of Drugs in DA he wouldn’t be able to obtain a clean record from the police/court. The law was changed to much fewer years thereby making it easy for a minister brother to be called to the bar. That brother was convicted with a drug offence. The Dame had difficulty in allowing that minister to act PM again. This is one of the reasons why the Dame wanted the late Carbon to succeed her. Sir Brian was in Govt. at the time and should be able to share some light on that.
The gangsters on the streets of dominica have a saying “never feed a man and give him strength over you, u might find is he that beating you later”
Clearly you don’t understand the article…Do you even know what irony means?
history is something!!! it will always keep reminding us of our past< the 90's and later Dr. Keith Mitchell of Grenada. He saw something about Brian we are only now seeing
Simply put, “Adam in de garden hiding, hiding from the truth”
Thank you Sir. Lately I have been wondering if there are any gentlemen of decency left in my beautiful country. You have given me a glimmer of hope.
Indeed the Dominican public need to embrace this question. It must be address from all aspect of society. The population seem to be divided on this question. What is wrong is wrong and should be clearly stated so. It is with great disbelief and confusion that I often ponder upon the observation that honesty almost seems like it never existed in our culture prior to this administration.
BRILLIANT ARTICLE. I like it ! Don’t worry : Truth crushed to earth will rise again.
An excellent piece by Sir Brian – I have a greater understanding and appreciation of the case before not only the court but before us – the collective whole, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
PS. Watch out Sir Brian – the vernom will be unleashed on you for enlightening us just wait to read and see and hear !!
You were right! Tony has lunched the 1st attack! hahahahaha
u r right! LUNCHED!!