Every single institution that is properly constituted when embarking on any disciplinary action of any of its members has to observe the rules of natural justice. – Hal Gollop QC, November 23.
Christ Church West MP, Dr Maria Agard’s battle with the National Council of the Barbados Labour Party is loaded with intrigue.
It highlights an unusual circumstance of a representative not getting along with three sets of branch executives; digs deeper to a relationship or lack thereof with political leader Mia Mottley and it provides a stage for a bitter former leader Owen Arthur.
These issues combine to create the intrigue that may now require a legal resolution, although Agard has a 28-day window to appeal to the party conference.
Not even the world’s most famous master plan for seizing and holding power – The Prince – could have contemplated a more compelling confluence of events.
It was written as a response to Machiavelli’s removal from his “post in his beloved Florence, he resolved to set down a treatise on leadership that was practical, not idealistic. The Prince he envisioned would be unencumbered by ordinary ethical and moral values; his prince would be man and beast, fox and lion”.
Given the values outlined by him, it is unimaginable how legal resolutions can be found for party political problems.
The concept of natural justice has emerged as the major defence of the lawyers for Agard and has been embraced by politicians on both sides. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of the politicians would have participated in removing an opposition leader within the last decade.
Natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. The concept has evolved over the years to more generally mean “duty to act fairly.” Given that politics is not a Sunday school, the notion of fairness cannot take on a Godly or even a legal meaning.
If a legal solution were sought, would Agard and her legal team have been able to walk out? That would have been contempt, whereas in the political arena it is just unruly. Perhaps it was a counter strategy to play for time which did not anticipate the mood of the council. The real issue for council members might have been one of losing the next election, which is against their self-interest.
Two opposition leaders were removed from their positions without the notion of fairness being discussed in any meaningful way, given the nature of politics. In both cases, neither was given a hearing. The Constitution is clear on how the leader is appointed or removed.
The process of appointing an opposition leader involves the convening of a meeting at which a vote is taken. On the occasion that Clyde Mascoll was appointed, it was reported that two members voted for themselves.
When Mascoll was removed, there was no meeting. He therefore did not have the benefit of a hearing. Notwithstanding the concept of natural justice, it was never intended that such a principle would apply to politics. The Constitution does not mention any duty to act fairly as it relates to the removal of an opposition leader or, for that matter, a Prime Minister.
Section 74 (4) says: “If, in the judgment of the Governor General, the Leader of the Opposition no longer is able to command the support of a majority of those members in the House of Assembly who do not support the Government, or, as the case may be, the support of the largest group of such members who are prepared to support one leader, the Governor General may revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.” (Viz. Henry Forde).
The process by which the revocation occurs does not mention fairness. Since a political party is not recognized in Parliament, political matters rest squarely in the domain of the party. A former attorney general had called for the expulsion of three members from the Democratic Labour Party during the very turbulent period between 2003 and 2006. He certainly was not contemplating natural justice.
It is difficult to understand how principles of natural justice will mend the fences between an MP and a branch executive when political leadership has to be practical rather than idealistic, especially at the constituency level. Further, how does natural justice mend fences between an MP and the leader when there is an unwillingness to compromise?
Given the pictures that appeared in the Press with Arthur and some BLP members who showed a surprising desire to embrace Agard, there is obviously more in the mortar than the pestle.
In politics, there always is!
The intrigue being played out may very well have resulted in the emergence of a political leader who understands the need to be man and beast, fox and lion.
Perhaps, the outburst from the man at whose right-hand she sat is a final recognition that his successor is made of the stuff befitting politicians, especially leaders.
Mottley may simply not be prepared to be out-foxed, a second time around, by her maker turned nemesis.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent.
