Add Governance Principles to "Due Process"

An apology from the Attorney General sparked much debate across popular liming spots as to why she would want to say sorry. Did she apologise because the decision to uproot the vendors did not go through due process according to law or policy? If the answer to that is yes, the first thing that needs to be exposed is, what is the process?

When one looks at Government, its expertise lies in its Departments or Ministries. Hence, if the Police or any other authority wanted to remove the vendors from a street then it should seek the inputs of several Government Departments before it can undertake this.

For example, they must find out from the Ministry of Public Works and the Markets, whether or not licenses were issued and whether or not they are appropriate? Also what percentage of the vendors has these licenses? Then it should seek clarification from Town Planning about vending in this area? What does Health say about the impact on public health? Is vending creating a nuisance in this area and to whom?

Many times we have heard through the grapevine of what government is planning and most times we wake up to heavy equipment and works in progress; the uprooting of people; the changing of laws and new policies being adopted that make what we are accustomed to a thing of the past.

It is only in the most recent times that the population and the stakeholders have been consulted but these have only been on issues where it is perceived that a large portion of the population would be affected. In cases where minorities are being affected there is the feeling that it would not generate sufficient concern or impact sufficiently to cause a national outrage, or should I say a sustained public outrage.

When Martin Luther extracted the Magna Carta from King John it was for this very reason. Of course arbitrary rule was a lot more rampant then, based on the Divine Right of the sovereign to 'Rule', but the principle and the effects are the same. It is natural that if you charge upon people suddenly then you will meet resistance.

The maxim, "man was not made for the law but the law for man", a base principle in law, seems to get lost somewhere along the line in a society structured by the law. How can we make and enforce laws without using the basic principles upon which the law stands?

For example, a common interpretation of the words 'Law made for man' is that the law was made not simply to regulate man but to serve man; to allow people to do what they are comfortable with but within limits that clearly define the line between tolerance and outrage.

The law should therefore be certain and not unpredictable. It should also be reasonable to the man on the "Clapham" omnibus. It is a great assumption that the law was not made to bring hardship upon people and even if it so reads it should be interpreted in a manner that will not bring hardship; because it simply cannot be the intention of Parliament to bring hardship on the people. After all, it is the Chamber of the People.

These principles of law together with others such as the Rule of Law, Equality before the Law and the rules of natural justice all add up to good governance within a democratic framework. The challenge is to fully utilise and develop them.

We therefore look forward to the day when scenarios like these happen with the consent of the uprooted rather than to their displeasure. We look forward to the day when high-handed decisions are not foisted on the people and where the last vestiges of cultural behaviour are not eroded but rather integrated into our national planning to create a cultural niche unique to Barbados .

Roosevelt O. King
Secretary General - BANGO
e-mail: bango@socamail.com