Gollop still wants answers on Mottley qualifications

Queen’s Counsel Hal Gollop Sunday night warned that the issue of Opposition Leader Mia Mottley’s legal qualifications to practise law in Barbados was simply no laughing matter, while calling on Mottley to present the necessary documentary evidence.

Addressing party faithful at a joint meeting of the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) branches in Christ Church, Gollop also urged Government to get to the bottom of the issue, saying it could have serious implications for the decisions taken by Mottley during her tenure as this island’s attorney general.

“This is not a trivial situation. We have got to look at it very carefully and the annual conference sent a resolution to the learned attorney general about what they think should be done,” Gollop told those gathered at the Deighton Griffith Secondary School.

Gollop made reference to Australia, where the high court last week ruled that the deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and four other politicians who had been elected to the senate were wrongly elected because they had dual citizenship.

The court’s decision means the five were disqualified from office although Joyce, who renounced his New Zealand citizenship in August, could return through a by-election.

The seven-judge bench ruled that the five politicians were ineligible as a “subject or citizen of a foreign power”, under to the constitution’s section 44(i).

The DLP has not openly stated that Mottley is not qualified to practise law, and has instead asked Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite to investigate whether or not she has a legal education certificate (LEC) require to practise here.

Mottley’s former Cabinet colleague and longtime friend Elizabeth Liz Thompson preempted any such probe when she revealed on Saturday evening that the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) leader did not have an LEC, but did not require one when she was called to the bar.

It was not immediately clear if the DLP intends to challenge Mottley in court, in very much the same way that the Australian politicians were brought before the court, and Gollop gave no indication of the ruling party’s intention when he addressed the issue last night.

Instead, he sought to cast doubt on the legality of decisions taken by Mottley when she was the country’s attorney general from 2001-2003 during the Owen Arthur administration.

“The real crux of the matter is that since he represented the Government and might have executed deals and treaties on behalf of the state, what would be the implications for him having done that job having not being qualified to do this?”, the senior attorney-at-law asked in relation to the Australian politician.

“So this must raise questions about what the goodly lady did while she was attorney general. So it is not a trivial thing at all,” Gollop stressed.

It was just over a week ago that DLP General Secretary George Pilgrim reported that a letter would be immediately dispatched to Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite calling for an investigation into the requirements necessary to practise law in Barbados.

The decision to write to Brathwaite was taken at the ruling party’s general conference last month at which a resolution was adopted questioning Mottley’s qualifications to practise law here.

During her address at the 79th BLP annual conference in Queen’s Park over the weekend, Thompson described the DLP’s claims as nonsense, stating that Mottley was admitted to the bar in December 1984 and presented by Sir Henry Forde and Sir Maurice King, former attorneys general for the BLP and DLP respectively.

“The Dems would now have you believe, if you pick apart what they are saying, that they conspired to do something illegal to get Mottley to practise law in Barbados when she was not entitled,” Thompson said.

Thompson also argued that there were others in the legal fraternity who did not have the LEC but were still allowed to practise law.

However, Gollop contended that Thompson’s defence was far from adequate, while suggesting that Mottley could remove any doubt about her legitimacy as lawyer by producing the necessary documents.

“This thing has created doubt. You [Mia Mottley] have brought certain documents to dispel the doubt, but even after you have brought the documents there is still doubt, so onus is on you to clear it up.

“The ball is in her court and all of you must call upon her and let her understand that if you want to be the leader of this country, you have got to demonstrate beyond any doubt that you have the requisite integrity that will not mislead us on something as fundamental as this, where your right to practise law after 30 years could still be a question left to be resolved,” Gollop stressed.

39 Responses to Gollop still wants answers on Mottley qualifications

  1. Oliver Smith October 30, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    Talk to the layers from Barbados Today and see if you should continue with this foolishness Hal Gollop. Politricks getting in the way of legal deductioning.

    Reply
  2. just observing October 30, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    I can’t believe that supposedly educated people cannot comprehend. If the law came into effect in1987 and the lady qualified in1984, what is there to answer? Stop creating drama and tell me the things I want to hear. e.g. the future of NIS that I have been paying since I began working, where my road tax going and I burst two tyres in the last few weeks. Why must I wait two weeks for garbage collection? Why I have to purchase necessary bottled water cause I only get brown or yellow water most of the time-Mains need to be flushed. Why I must drive through sewage water whenever it rains.
    I could go on because I like other bajans have had enough and wunna dwelling on irrelevant things. Can’t you all see where we are at? Gollop and company, wunna big fees cushioning NSRL for you all. We butting it rough! We want problem solvers for this country. Cut de slack and come with something sensible. Wunna just wasting we time and tekking up valuable airtime.

    Reply
    • hcalndre October 31, 2017 at 11:12 am

      just observing; Hal Gollop and company would find it very important to make a big scene of whether Miss. Mottley has a license to practice law in Barbados, Errol Barrow did something years ago so that who was called barristers could not represent anyone in court, he made them attorneys. Now the PM and some of his ministers are qualified attorneys including you Gollop and attorney Comissiong to take you`all to school. If being a qualified Cave Hill attorney seems to be the easiest thing to do, what about Engineering, Science, and other qualifications that are needed in today`s world, let me say this again, the US Supreme Court a law degree is not necessary, so what is the big thing in Barbados, Miss. Mottley went to Law school in England and I`m sure she would any case against the Cave Hill bunch.

      Reply
  3. archy perch October 31, 2017 at 1:44 am

    Public opinion does not suffice in this matter,. The Law is the Law. Barbados is not a banana republic. Even vendors have to be licensed and taxi operators too. Get real Barbadians we have more than enough real lawyers to go around.The ones grandfathered into the Bar had more than enough time to upgrade their qualifications. Doctors have to do it, so who the heck is she?????? Yah know…….who the heck Is She anyway?
    Hummmm!

    Reply
    • hcalndre October 31, 2017 at 11:23 am

      @archy perch; you said that Barbados is not a banana republic, if it quack like a duck, it is a duck, say what you think it is.

      Reply
  4. Jennifer October 31, 2017 at 1:58 am

    We as an educated public really needs to stop getting dooped by this hoodwinking and get some kid of a body together to call into account these leaders ad “top brass” who appear to be singing from the same strategic, hoodwink song sheet. Deal with the real issues and stop this snot rag, red herring, lead astray nonsense. If she cannot practice stop she and let us move on from this repetitive, redundant cycle of BS. This BS is not doing anything for black communities. The grass growing and the horse hungry.

    Reply
    • Jennifer October 31, 2017 at 6:53 am

      When these type of articles pop up we need to take a stance and stop commenting on them as they are mare distractions from the bigger picture. These people just constantly talking BS, pretending to be concerned and doing nothing – As per usual. That is the only way they will get the people picture. And I bet they are all eating and drinking in each other backyards on Sunday evenings.

      Reply
  5. BaJan boy October 31, 2017 at 3:16 am

    Archy Perch you is real real cuxt. That is all for you.. Go read..We know Jennifer is one in the first degree no need to comment on her or him.

    Reply
  6. colleta October 31, 2017 at 3:39 am

    It’s a pity that only blacks behave this way, we’re best at discrediting one another. The people need to be freed from the chains that are holding them down.

    Reply
    • Jennifer October 31, 2017 at 6:40 am

      true – how???????

      Reply
  7. harry turnover October 31, 2017 at 5:36 am

    Gollop can’t you UNDERSTAND that at the time she was qualified THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT LAW CERTIFICATE ??? that it came about AFTER ?

    Reply
    • Miche October 31, 2017 at 6:44 am

      you gettin yuh infurmation from de wolf,,,strate from she mout..The next thing that you will copy is her name

      Reply
  8. Randolph October 31, 2017 at 6:08 am

    Head too big and since he became a lawyer everything has gone to his head.

    Reply
  9. Randolph October 31, 2017 at 6:10 am

    I hope when she becomes PM Gollop wound have to flee the Island.

    Reply
  10. MARIA Holder October 31, 2017 at 6:11 am

    I want to know how this Johnny come lately Hal Gollop is now all of a sudden this big legal Guru. Tell the people how many millions you get since your friend was PM. Tell them!

    Reply
    • hcalndre October 31, 2017 at 7:43 pm

      Gollop is the Government`s lawyer appointed by his friend the PM another lawyer that Comissiong tied up in knots.

      Reply
  11. Richard Johnston October 31, 2017 at 6:34 am

    A law degree or admission to be bar are not a requirement to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Reply
  12. Greengiant October 31, 2017 at 7:24 am

    Someone here pleases tell me. Respond to this question. Don’t you want to know if the opposition leader who has been our attorney general is qualified to practice law?

    Yes we wish to hear from the government on all the issues that affect our daily lives. Tax returns, Education, Road rehabilitation, Dept stabilization, Foreign reserves, the criminal justice system and the efficiency of the judicial process. These issues though have been of concern fir decades, even under the governance of the current opposition party. So they too had the opportunity to address things. What happens though, is as long as Barbadians have money to spend, they pays attention to nothing else around them, once money slows then every problem concerns them.

    Every profession has to meet a criteria in this country, the law requires it, our laws that we want our young people to respect and adhere to. What message are we the adults sending when we want to trivialize the concern of Mottley’s qualification to practice? If you want to give her your vote, feel free to do so, but we should all want to know the legal status of our former Attorney General, and aspiring Prime Minister. Remember though, there’s no legal, educational, moral or medical qualifications / requirements for a person to be politician.

    They’re silent elements at play against this woman, these allegations that has lead to the call for he to present these qualifications were hatched in Roebuck Street. Deny it if you all want to, the B L P can pretend to be united for the sake of winning an election as they are. Several of us know however, that the parliamentary vote will go against her should her specially selected candidates fail at the poll. The arrival of the alternative parties that reflects the B L P so strongly will be the one to eat away at B L P votes in the constituencies Mottley hope to win.

    We need to pay more attention generally to the happenings on the ground, stop only listening to those with political motives and hear those with nationalistic interest. Should the B L P win the next election Barbadians will see the Politics of Inclusion Bees at work. You heard it here, we will have serious and real challenges to her leadership even before the election is called. Remember the elements that removed her as opposition leader prior to election 2013 are alive and well nested within the party.

    Reply
    • ebaje October 31, 2017 at 3:35 pm

      Stupse.

      Reply
    • hcalndre October 31, 2017 at 8:05 pm

      @Greengiant; Is Miss. Mottley a qualified attorney to practice law in Barbados or not, in her years of practicing I have never heard any person looking for her because she has their money and hiding while being advised to get another scamp to represent her instead of saying, give the client their money. Most of the qualified scamps in Barbados would be in jail for misappropriating and stealing clients money if they were in N.America.

      Reply
  13. Jennifer October 31, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Do something about her and the situation if you need to or have too or STFU. Simple. no long talk.

    Reply
  14. roger headley October 31, 2017 at 8:14 am

    Take it before the law courts Hal and as the PM told Michael Carrington, we will tell Mia – get a lawyer

    Reply
  15. Carson C Cadogan October 31, 2017 at 9:15 am

    This matter is far from over.

    Reply
  16. Adrian Hinds October 31, 2017 at 10:53 am

    Liz says she was admitted to the bar in 1984 Henry Ford says 1987. The Legal professions act says that you need a LEC after Dec 1984. Mottley LinkedIn page says she attened LSE from 1983 to 1986. Liz, and Edmond Hinkson says Mia does not have a LEC

    If Liz is correct about 1984 and Mia not having a LEC – how could Mia be admitted in Barbados when she was at LSE 1983-1986?

    If Henry Forde is correct about 1987 – how comes she did not need a LEC if the law says that one is required?

    Reply
    • ebaje October 31, 2017 at 4:08 pm

      Pardner 1984 is the date of joining the temple on the recommendation of Errol Barrow and Sir Henry Forde, while a 2nd year student having started in 1983; July 1987 the date of being called to the bar in England and December 1987 in Barbados. Anyone who joined any of the inns prior to 1st January 1985 was not required to do the LEC.

      Reply
    • Eric November 1, 2017 at 7:03 am

      Go read how Barbados Today have to now pay Mia for saying that she is not qualified to practice law here. She she sued their ass in court and wan the case this week. Now they have to payup. she should sue you all ass too. DLP only know now that she was practicing law? this talk was only to get Barbadians to mistrust her and dont vote for the BLP next year. you all love jumping behind politicians like fools without using you all brains and think. after all these years how come only now they talking? well the court has spoken on that matter.

      Reply
  17. Carson C Cadogan October 31, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Lizzy said :

    “” Mia was called to the Bar in the United Kingdom on July 23rd 1987.””

    “”Ms Mottley was presented to the Bar of the UK by Sir Henry Forde QC the former Attorney General and (The Right Excellent) Errol Barrow, former Prime Minister.””

    Errol Barrow died on 1 June, 1987.

    Reply
  18. Concerned Man October 31, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    Opposition Leader Mia Mottley will receive an undisclosed sum of money after winning a lawsuit against the online newspaper yesterday. The two parties agreed that the terms of compensation would remain confidential.

    Mottley had sued the company and its Editor-in-Chief Kaymar Jordan following two published articles which questioned Mottley’s credibility and eligibility to practise law in Barbados.

    Barbados Today also agreed to withdraw the allegations and imputations which were said to have caused Mottley “hurt, distress and embarrassment”.

    The first article, carrying the headline Question Mark Remains Over Mottley’s Legal Certification, was published on June 9, 2017, while an editorial entitled Of Chance, Gossip, A Big Lie And Leadership was published on September 20.

    That editorial was said to have called into question Mottley’s integrity, credibility and leadership attributes. It also suggested that she had been practising law illegally in Barbados.

    The online paper also allowed statements from members of the public to be published on its Facebook page and website between June 9 and 17 which were defamatory.

    Mottley’s lawyers, Queen’s Counsel Elliott Mottley and Leslie Haynes, along with Stewart Mottley, successfully argued before Justice Sonia Richards in the High Court that she was qualified to practise law in Barbados since December 18, 1987, the date of her admission by then Chief Justice Sir Denys Williams.

    Attorneys Anthony Audain and Brian Barrow appeared on behalf of the defendants. (RB)

    Reply
  19. Helicopter(8P) October 31, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Barbados is an independent sovereign democratic or I should say social democratic nation and I believe it could have similarities in constitutional laws from selected nations. Going further to compare the U.S.A. in every domestic affair could be somewhat redundant and regressive. Some of the of the U.S constitution is outstanding but not every item.

    Reply
    • hcalndre October 31, 2017 at 8:17 pm

      @Helicopter(8p) the US Constitution would have to be outstanding, your ex PM bypass every one of the attorneys in Barbados and brought a person in from the US, had the laws change, so this person could be the CJ. What is that telling you.

      Reply
  20. Ralph W Talma October 31, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    1. Why has this matter raised its ugly head again? It was supposedly put to bed some years ago. According to learned members of the Judiciary Ms Mottley is qualified to serve on the Bench in Barbados. End of story.
    2. There is panic, I believe, in the DLP who have at last realised they are going to be defeated at the next election, and are now trying desperately to cause confusion in the minds of the electorate.
    3. Good luck Ma’am and God bless.

    Reply
  21. SusieQ October 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Keep talking and the money will keep flowing

    Reply
  22. Carson C Cadogan October 31, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    One thing one can always rely on the members and supporters of the Barbados Labour Party to do:

    COUNT THEIR CHICKENS BEFORE THEY ARE HATCHED.

    Reply
  23. Dick Tracy October 31, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    Is he a lawyer, or crook? Only one need’s a license.

    Reply
  24. Harry October 31, 2017 at 7:57 pm

    distraction tactics just like Trump, however the foreign reserves keep falling and a record 20 downgrades in 9 years, how do you like Dem apples??

    Reply
  25. Sisleen Greene October 31, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Anyone turn lawyer after wood work and posing as a Q.C needs forgiveness. He is busy trying to question the LADY’s qualification before he tells Bajan’s where the Crook from St. John who is the P.M’s friend and his client got Clico clients’money
    While you are at it tell them bout the Audi and the Ranch Rover. Also tell them bout the tiefing land in st. John owned by the wives.
    Don’forget to tell us how you suddenly get do rich, you fraud, We gine have to build a special Dodds fuh all ah wunna bunch of tiefs and frauds. Tek de shirtvfrom Sunday and get al pillow made cause yuh gine need it just now “Donald Trump”.
    Don’t know wuh wunna gine tell God almighty

    Reply
  26. Carson C Cadogan November 1, 2017 at 7:16 am

    “”Paragraph 2 Appendix 2 of the Legal Profession Act 370A: “Notwithstanding paragraph 1, no person who has joined any of the Inns of Court of the United Kingdom after the 31st December, 1984, shall be deemed to be qualified, by virtue of his having been called to the Bar of England, to practice law”.

    Reply
    • ebaje November 1, 2017 at 3:10 pm

      So why then are you ranting up and down on Barbados Today if Mia joined the Inns of Court in 1984? Joined and called are not the same.

      Reply
  27. Lorenzo November 4, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    CCC this game of distraction or the ace in the hole gone up in flames ,as the people would say Next.What other nonsense the Dems will come with,as clearly the writng on the wall.Bajans want to hear about those 20 downgrades,high crime rate,Poor roads,poor gardage collections and your plans of improving these areas not no lot long talk about no LEC,that do not pay bills moron.If the Dems cannot find better persons than you,Ras,Saga Boy,GreenGiant,Big Man,Stell Alleyne,Mark My Word ,Archy Perch,and Javon Carmichael they in real trouble.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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