News Feed

October 27, 2016 - United win Manchester derby Juan Mata struck to win a tight Man ... +++ October 27, 2016 - IAAF wants Bolt’s services KINGSTON, Jamaica – IAAF Pres ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Proper shutdown protocol needed, says Bynoe The Department of Emergency Managem ... +++ October 27, 2016 - ‘Out of touch’ Economist Ryan Straughn says the la ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Lowe looking to protect the south coast A senior policymaker has warned tha ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Road Hockey 5s hit halfway mark After three weeks of competition th ... +++

Doubly wrong

Gollop rejects fingerprinting ruling

A prominent Queen’s Counsel has rejected out of hand Thursday’s ruling by the Supreme Court in the fingerprinting case brought by attorney-at-law and social activist David Comissiong against the Freundel Stuart administration.

Arguing that the legal judgment was not only premature, but an absolute nonsense and stressing that the Immigration (Biometrics) Regulations 2015 were still at the “idea” stage and was yet to become law, Hal Gollop, QC, also did not rule out the possibility of Government pressing ahead with its plan to introduce fingerprinting at all ports of entry, and for all persons, with the exception of children under the age of 16 and persons holding diplomatic passports.

Asked whether he felt the measure had suffered a premature death, Gollop, who is close to the Democratic Labour Party administration, warned that there was nothing stopping Government from taking forward the fingerprinting imitative.

“That is something for the minister responsible for security and his Cabinet after taking all things into consideration,” he told Barbados TODAY while echoing recent sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and other top officials of his administration that “one cannot be oblivious to the need in a modern society, a modern international climate, to have measures in place that will protect the security of the citizens and the State.”

He stressed that terrorism currently abounds, amid reports that some of the equipment needed for the fingerprinting plan to be implemented had already been sourced by Government.

Nonetheless, Gollop stressed that the Immigration (Biometrics) Regulations 2015 was simply “an idea” at this stage.

“It is not a law, so you cannot act under it. Consequently, you cannot be sued under it,” the attorney told Barbados TODAY, pointing out that the measure was originally slated to go into effect on April 1 this year.

However, following much public outcry, Acting Chief Immigration Officer Wayne Marshall announced on March 18 that it was being deferred.

In what has been viewed as a further setback to Government’s fingerprinting plan, Madam Justice Pamela Beckles on Thursday ruled that the move to have the Immigration (Biometrics) Regulations 2015 introduced was not only unconstitutional, but “null and void”, with Comissiong telling waiting reporters at the steps of the Supreme Court that he felt he had been “spectacularly vindicated.

“Just as we anticipated, this matter was not contested. It really couldn’t have been contested because the facts were so clear. So Justice Pamela Beckles has granted the order and that order basically says that the Immigration (Biometrics) Regulations 2015 were null and void and are unconstitutional and an order of certiorari has been granted to quash it. So, as of now those regulations no longer exist,” a beaming Comissiong said in reporting on the court’s decision.

However, Gollop was adamant today that there was no “legal” win to speak of.

Instead, he charged that the court had acted prematurely on the matter.

Insisting that the fingerprinting proposal was not yet law, Gollop pointed out “it cannot be used to fingerprint anybody.

“So by extension, you cannot get a constitutional action against it, because it is not a law. It cannot be used to breach rights, so you cannot get an action against it. It is like getting something against nothing,” the Queen’s Counsel maintained.

He further argued that the consent order “must” be set aside, even as he sought to lay blame squarely at the feet of the Solicitor General’s office for failing to enter a defence in the matter.

“They should have applied to strike it out because it is premature,” he told Barbados TODAY.

“It was an action being brought on nothing, but having not entered [a defence], to go and give a consent order to something that can’t be done legally, is really doubly wrong in my view.”

However, Gollop acknowledged that Comissiong may have made some “political” headway in terms of advancing his argument that Barbadian nationals should not be fingerprinted upon entering or leaving their place of birth.

“That is a political issue, whether Government thinks it efficacious to enact such a measure or not, that is a political matter. That is a decision of the political directorate that is open to challenge . . . but until it becomes a law, what we are doing is debating the pros and cons of Government instituting such a matter,” Gollop insisted.

7 Responses to Doubly wrong

  1. dave July 2, 2016 at 4:35 am

    joker !
    the things people say to protect Friends !!

  2. Sheron Inniss July 2, 2016 at 5:59 am

    Ha, ha, ha. The only country needing to do such is the international police – USA. The real international police is the I AM THAT I AM. MR Gollop, shame on you and this administration!

  3. harry turnover July 2, 2016 at 6:52 am

    It was NOT a law….Yet it was going to be implemented….. on ALL FOOLS DAY….in other words Government was going to implement something that WAS NOT YET LAWFUL.

    ” amid reports that some of the equipment needed for the fingerprinting plan to be implemented had already been sourced by Government.”

    Mr.Comissiong to be fair to Mr.Gollop ,wait until it becomes law and go to Court AGAIN…and in the meantime you and others could organze 500+ Bajans to go overseas and come back and refuse to be finger printed and encourage all returning BAJANS on the day in question to do the same.

  4. harry turnover July 2, 2016 at 7:05 am

    @ Carson C Cadogan…..what did you say the other day ???…that it was a bad idea from the beginning ???

    It was ONLY an IDEA not a LAW…. right ??? when it becomes a LAW would you then say that it was a bad LAW from the beginning ?…or would you tow the party line and wait until Mr.Gollop speaks.

  5. dave July 2, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    I wonder why people are defending nonsense being done by this Government. It could only be for the largesse and a taste of the Fatted calf. Per diems pensions, perks and positions on Boards ; Tribunals and the lot. When are we going to get some honest people in positions ? honest in their deliberations and honest in their thoughts; honest to call a spade a spade . Oh my !!!

  6. Smiley July 2, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    We need to vote out the political party that seeking to take away our rights as citizens of this country.I’m not a criminal and I will not be tricked into the Bullying plans the DLP hope to put in place. Furthermore I will not vote for any party that want to make Barbados a gay paradise.Fed up with the bunch of you who can’t be bold and strong for the people who trusted you with their X.

  7. Natalie Murray July 3, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    It is wrong that the NCC workers cannot get justice..instead of talking crap – bring closure to that case.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *