Last week the press in Dominica reported, without fanfare, that the matter between attorneys Glenworth Emanuel and Stephen Isidore had been adjourned to March 11, 2010. The reports indicate that Emanuel's counsel sought the adjournment to prepare his response to the affidavit evidence filed by the opposing side.
The report conveyed the impression that Emanuel was either content with the pace of the proceedings or was not particularly interested in a speedy trial resolution.
But as with all legal matters, there is more to this than meets the eye. There were two court appearances during the week of Christmas. On Monday, December 20, 2010, the matter appeared before the presiding justice.
Emanuel, who was not a party to the judicial review application brought by Isidore, made an application to the court for an order that he be joined as a respondent to Isidore's application. Such an order, if successful, would permit him to make arguments against Isidore's judicial review application.
The attorneys for Isidore, Messrs. Alick Lawrence and Heather Felix-Evans advised the court that they had not had sufficient time to consider Emanuel's application. Significantly, Ms. Dyrample, who represented the Attorney General's office, told the court, with the solemnity of a Mother Theresa, that the Attorney General was opposed to Isidore's application for Judicial Review.
She noted specifically that she had been "instructed" by the Attorney General to oppose Isidore's application on the ground that he had not complied with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure which govern the bringing of such applications. The matter was adjourned to the next day for further argument.
What a difference a day makes. There was a changing of the guard in terms of legal representation. When the parties appeared in Court the next day, Ms. Dyrample had vanished as if by a magician's wand.
In her place stood another counsel. Mr. Lawrence was no longer present. But not only had the legal players changed, the Attorney General's position, whether on account of a confession or divine intervention, had also changed.
The new counsel then declared that the Attorney General was objecting to Emanuel's application for standing. The new counsel for the A.G. declared that the Attorney General now supported Isidore's application for judicial review. Emanuel's counsel then agreed to the adjournment of the matter to review the A.G.'s arguments against Emanuel being added as a party to Isidore's application.
Eh beh weh Garcon! This complete somersault by the Attorney General can mean two things. They have joined forces with the Isidore legal team. Secondly, they have decided, figuratively speaking, to throw Senior Magistrate Evalina Baptiste under the bus.
You see, the A.G. is supposed to be representing Baptiste. They are supposed to be defending her decision to issue a warrant for Isidore's arrest.
But they have abandoned all such intentions. They are now supporting the review of a decision of a judicial officer who they are supposed to be defending. They have joined hearts and hands with the man who initiated a court action against a Senior Magistrate and the Police Commissioner.
Bondye Seyen Mawi Josef! Is there no end to the legal makakwe that is going on in Dominica? Is there no end in sight to the evidence that the state's resources have been hijacked to serve the interests of a few?
This writer has learned that no one in the A.G.'s office sought advice, let alone instructions from Magistrate Baptiste about the manner of proceedings. Who is protecting her interests? Who is seeking to defend the appropriateness of her actions when her employer has abandoned all intentions to do so?
Ironically, Emanuel's counsel, if granted standing, may have the task of seeking to justify the issuance of a warrant while a representative of the state does not raise a finger to do so.
I hope Magistrate Baptiste's contract is not coming up for renewal soon. Because if it is, nou cay vywe un baguy yo ca kweyea, "de nex level."
