The Office of the Attorney General on Wednesday failed in a bid before the Supreme Court to block the execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Hugh Small earlier this month regarding Elizabeth Thompson, who was fired earlier this year as registrar general.
The judge on June 6 ruled that the government had wrongfully and unfairly terminated her and he quashed the authoritiesﾴ decision to do so.
On June 23, the government filed a summons for a stay of the execution, which would have restrained Ms. Thompson from performing the functions of registrar general pending the determination of an appeal filed on June 15.
Both Ms. Thompson and Acting Registrar General Shane Miller have been signing off on crucial documents at the Registrar Generalﾴs Department.
In his ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Small said that once a judge has signed an Order of Certiorari, he cannot stay that order.
Such an order is given by a senior court to reverse the actions of a lower court or a government organization which has made a decision. In this case, the judge, as mentioned, reversed the governmentﾴs decision to fire Ms. Thompson.
Justice Small said that a judgeﾴs jurisdiction to adjudicate has been exhausted once he has made such an order.
His ruling was read by Justice Anita Allen as he is out of town due to a death in the family.
The Attorney Generalﾴs Office had also asked Justice Small to prevent Ms. Thompson from carrying out her functions as registrar general pending the determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
But Justice Small said, “No authority was offered for my jurisdiction to make that order. I doubt that, in the particular circumstances of this matter, any exists.”
He also said, “It is of course regrettable that attempts by the executive to find a solution to the awkward anomaly of having a registrar general and an acting registrar general at the same time failed.
“However, in my view, although there is a concurrent jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to grant a stay of execution, in the circumstances of this case, where the Order of Certiorari has been signed and the respondents have filed Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, only the Court of Appeal can order a stay of Order of Certiorari.”
In seeking the stay, the Office of the Attorney General relied on the affidavit of Sheila Carey, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Financial Services and Investments, who has the overall administrative responsibility for the Department of the Registrar General.
In it she states, that following the June 6 ruling, Ms. Thompson attended for duty at the Department on numerous occasions. She also noted that Mr. Miller was appointed acting registrar general on January 11, 2005.
The judge noted in his ruling, “I break the sequence of the procedures leading up to this application to state that this is the first information in this case that an appointment was made following the termination of [Ms Thompson]. I do so against the background of my observation in the 6 June judgment that I was left to doubt whether there was full disclosure with all the cards face up on the table.”
In her affidavit, Ms. Carey also states that Ms. Thompsonﾴs attendance at the Department and efforts to perform the functions of registrar general has attracted media attention that results in unnecessary crowds, and has a disruptive effect on the Departmentﾴs operations.
She also states that in light of the fact that there is a sitting acting registrar general, the Attorney Generalﾴs Office attempted to broker an agreement with Ms. Thompson for suitable arrangements by which the parties affected by the judgment may govern their conduct pending the determination of the appeal.
Ms. Carey believes that if the judgment is not stayed and Ms. Thompson is not blocked from performing the functions of registrar general, the ensuing state of affairs will not be conducive to the proper administration of government business at the Department.
Justice Small also said Ms. Thompson in an affidavit on June 24, provided a number of letters passed between her attorney, Milton Evans, and government agencies after the June 6 ruling was handed down.
On June 7, Evans & Co. wrote to the permanent secretary in the Department of Public Services and requested that salary and other benefits withheld from Ms. Thompson since January 2005 be paid, and that she be restored to the payroll.
The letter also noted that when Ms. Thompson reported to work that morning she learned that Mr. Miller was occupying the office and carrying out the duties of registrar general.
The permanent secretary replied two days later saying that the Ministry of Financial Services and Investments had consulted the Office of the Attorney General and that they and the Public Services department would respond to the letter.
On June 8, the acting director of legal affairs in the Office of the Attorney General spoke with Mr. Evans and wrote three letters: one that asked that no action be taken on the judgment until a decision was taken on whether there were any grounds on which to appeal; another that advised that the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Financial Services and Investments did not require Ms. Thompson to work until further notice and a third that conceded that the request that Ms. Thompson not report to work was not intended to be administrative action, but was, in keeping with Mr. Evansﾴ suggestion to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and disruption.
It also gave the assurance that in the interim, she would not be deprived of any emoluments or benefits to which she may be entitled.
In a letter on June 20 written to Mr. Evans by the Attorney General, Alfred Sears, he referred to various conversations they had relating to the matter, and confirmed his verbal undertaking that Ms. Thompson is permitted to be absent from work for the duration of negotiations to settle the matter, and that this time will be considered paid leave should she succeed in the appeal.
He stated his intention to do the utmost to ensure a resolution within a reasonable time, the goal being that this would happen not later than the end of June 2005.
Justice Small said, “The negotiations appear to have broken down because the letter from the attorney general did not deal with the fact that [Ms. Thompson] was not paid from she was terminated and there was no indication that the government had no objection to her taking private work that does not conflict with her status as registrar general.”
Bianca Symonette, The Bahama Journal
