Democratic Labour Party leader Verla DePeiza has charged that the Attorney General was “out of place” for his own attempt to upbraid Magistrate Graveney Bannister on the enforcement of the curfew legislation.
DePeiza, herself a lawyer, argued that the Attorney General’s chiding of a sitting magistrate was unwarranted.
“It was out of place. A magistrate is part of the judiciary and can make those pronouncements in dealing with a case,” she told Barbados TODAY.
On Wednesday, Magistrate Bannister, who sits in the District ‘A’ Traffic Court, commented on the enforceability of the Emergency Management (Covid-19) Curfew No 3 Directive, as he dealt with the case of a teenager, accused of running afoul of the law.
The magistrate said that the law was “badly drafted”.
But in a swift response, Attorney General Dale Marshall issued a statement that suggested the magistrate himself was out of place to “trespass” on matters that are the purview of either the executive or legislative branches of Government.
The Government’s legal advisor said while the judiciary interprets the island’s statutes and applies them, that duty only arises in the context of a matter over which it presides.
Marshall then said: “It is, therefore, most unfortunate that he has chosen to step beyond his responsibility as a judicial officer, and to trespass on matters that are for the executive or the legislature. It is also regrettable that his commentary is likely to lead Barbadians to doubt the validity of the Directive and its force in law.
“As Attorney General, I am satisfied that the Directive is fully enforceable in law.”
In response to Marshall, DePeiza declared: “What the executive branch needs to do then, since the concern has been raised, is to tighten the wording of the directive. It is really that simple.”
DePeiza said: “We have separation of powers; the executive creates legislation, the legislative interprets the legislation. That is the function of the judiciary, they interpret the legislation.
“If you do not like the interpretation that the judiciary has put on a piece of legislation then the executive has the right to go back and write it differently to meet the objective that you intended that is clear.”
DePeiza said she had addressed her own issues with the Curfew Directive earlier this month on her Facebook page.
“I wrote that what is written in the directive is not a 24-hour lockdown. It states a curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and then between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., it gives prescribed reasons to move. So you cannot call that a 24-hour lock down.
“And because each time that we have had an update directive it has increased the reasons to be on the road, it has actually weakened the legislation but I keep saying to persons who ask me that there is difference between legality and common sense.”
DePeiza said a commonsense position was that “we need to separate ourselves” for the time being and limit movement as best as possible”.
She added: “Having said that, though, we do not have spoken law in Barbados. So, constantly repeating what you want it to be does not fix the deficiency.
“The legislation said April 15 to May 3 from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. The way Clause 1 is worded suggests a daily curfew… and then from 6 a.m. to 6 p. m. , there are reasons to move . . .
She called on the Government to tighten the rules’ wording
“It is really as simple as that. Spell out what you want. So do not move unless you must and these are the reasons that we give you for moving. You don’t get to create the reason for yourself, these are the reasons that we give you.” DePeiza said.
fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb
