Problems with Extradition Process

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

In 1958 William Lederer and Eugene Burdick wrote a book entitled The Ugly American. It shook up Washington, became a best-seller and in 1963 was made into a movie starring Marlon Brando. The title entered the language as a descriptor for Americans behaving badly abroad.

Set in a fictional Southeast Asian country, it told the stories of Americans trying to serve the interests of their country in a foreign land. One of them was a physically unattractive engineer who was trying to do the right thing while others, including the ambassador, were mired in arrogance and incompetence.

The book was in the end not about the ugliness of the technical man working in the field but, as one commentator put it, “the ugliness of short-sighted, conceited, self-important fools” at the official level.

The book prompted US President Dwight D. Eisenhower to review and reform his country’s military aid programme in the fight against Communism in Southeast Asia, and his successor, President John F. Kennedy, made it required reading for his foreign-service people.

The recent extradition of Samuel “Ninety” Knowles, a Bahamian wanted by the Americans on drug-related charges, has set off heated discussion. One stream of that discussion does not redound to the credit of Bahamians, but that is for another day.

There are other aspects of this affair that law-abiding Bahamians are concerned about. The first is a widely-circulated – and up to now not denied -- report that Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson through the media brought public pressure to bear on her cabinet colleague, Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell, to sign the extradition order.

If that is true then Bahamians need to worry. It would be another indication that the PLP is grossly mismanaging our affairs and that Prime Minister Perry Christie is utterly incapable of enforcing the rules and conventions of cabinet government on his fractious colleagues.

It is wrong:

For members of the cabinet publicly to debate one another on policy issues;

For one member of the cabinet publicly to pressure another to adopt a particular policy or to take a particular course of action;

For one minister publicly to interfere in any way in the portfolio of another;

For members of the cabinet publicly to argue with one another about who is responsible for a particular matter, and

For members of the cabinet publicly to curry favour with any person or group at the expense of his colleagues.

Yet ministers of the PLP Government have violated every one of these proscriptions and in some cases repeatedly and flagrantly. Cabinet is the place where policy matters are debated and decided, where government action is determined and where any differences between ministers are settled.

Once a decision is taken by the cabinet then all ministers are collectively responsible and no minister should say publicly that he did not agree with a particular decision. An attorney general, as the government’s chief legal adviser, should not disclose what advice he gives his cabinet colleagues on any matter.

The only way a member of the cabinet can publicly distance himself from a decision of the cabinet is if he feels so strongly about it that he is prepared to resign. Under no circumstances should an attorney general disclose the advice he gives his colleagues on a particular matter unless he is prepared to resign. Even then his public disagreement should be restricted to the issue over which he resigns.

The reason for all this is to ensure the integrity of the cabinet and that each and every minister is able to speak freely around the table and give his best advice to his colleagues. If these rules are abandoned then ministers would be free to run off in different directions and cabinet government would be undermined.

So it would be an unpardonable breach of cabinet etiquette for an attorney general to take credit or to deny responsibility for any cabinet or ministerial decision except in the context of collective responsibility.

If anything like that happened in the Knowles case, then Prime Minister Perry Christie has no choice but to act. It should not be allowed to stand that the Attorney General takes personal credit for a particular decision at the expense of one or all of her colleagues.

Also, if it is true that a minister of the government – in this case the Minister of Foreign Affairs – has been publicly or otherwise pressured to act prematurely, then the country would not have been well-served and, once again, the Prime Minister has the responsibility to act, at least to say something.

* * *

One person seems to think that he knows exactly what happened in the Ninety Knowles case, and that is former US Ambassador to The Bahamas Richard Blankenship.

The Bahamas is a democratic country where citizens have freedom of speech. That freedom extends also to residents and visitors who are all free to speak their minds, even to the point of being offensive and meddlesome.

The bumptious Mr. Blankenship seems never to miss an opportunity to do just that, so it was not surprising that he has once again succumbed to the temptation to make a public spectacle of himself by planting both of his feet into an endlessly accommodating mouth.

During his posting here Mr. Blankenship frequently spoke out of turn and succeeded in annoying more Bahamians than all of his predecessors put together, going back to days when the US was represented by consuls general. To the relief of many Bahamians, his accreditation as Ambassador to The Bahamas was abruptly terminated.

Mr. Blankenship was quoted in The Tribune last week as crediting and praising Mrs. Maynard for her no-nonsense approach to the Knowles affair. It was Foreign Minister Mitchell who signed the deportation order but Mr. Blankenship seems convinced that Mrs. Gibson was responsible.

It should be extremely embarrassing to Mrs. Gibson that Mr. Blankenship has chosen her as a future prime minister of The Bahamas. More than that, he seems anxious for her to take over from her colleague, Deputy Prime Minister Cynthia Pratt.

Most Bahamians would like to believe that they are the ones who choose their government and their prime minister, and that their prime minister is the one who chooses ministers.

But, says this interfering foreigner, “Allyson may have set the stage for her becoming deputy prime minister. She has certainly shown leadership qualities and a capacity to make difficult decisions.”

This dubious expert on Bahamian politics sees the whole picture, according to him, and takes his meddling a step further. “She no doubt saw that Knowles could be a political anchor round her party’s neck at election time.”

Then Mr. Blankenship pontificates, apparently oblivious to the offence he may cause many Bahamians, “This also means the FNM will not be able to tie the PLP to the drug problem.”

It is for the Bahamian people, Bahamian political parties and Bahamian candidates to decide what the issues will be in the next election and who will be tied to what, not this ugly American.

Comments

[Rick]

Dear Sir Arthur:
You seem to give the Cubans a pass on these things?
Why?
Rick.

[Etienne Christen]

Dear Sir Arthur:

I have always enjoyed your columns as well balanced and appropriate, and I completely agree with the first half of your column, but I strongly disagree with the second.

I believe that the Bahamas suffers greatly from this misperception that outsiders don't have a 'right' to speak on Bahamian affairs. It is merely a product of our own national insecurity that we respond in such a strongly reactive measure to 'outsiders' commenting on our affairs. Granted, you can say that the former Ambassador speaks with too much bravado or what have you, but the truth is - he has no authority in our country anymore. His position, while bombastic, carries no legal weight. The Bahamas should thrive on open and free discourse and not trouble itself with silencing voices it doesn't like. Let all the voices speak, the truth usually comes to light that way. If the former Ambassador thinks that the Attorney General would make a better Deputy, then that is his opinion. Bahamians should be adroit enough to hear his opinion and agree, disagree or dismiss it as they see fit. His opinion contributes to the national debate and the more debating about issues concerning the halls of power - the better.

Secondly, ex-pats who have lived here or visited here should be listened to, as they offer the invaluable view of outsiders. I say invaluable because our entire economy is dependant on outsiders - their opinions matter. I must emphasise that this is not to say that they should be listened to and obeyed. My point is simply that we must leave all avenues open for outsiders to express their views. We can agree or disagree as we see fit - again, they have no authority, they cannot determine government policy and they cannot vote as citizens. By letting them speak though, we are well informed of the opinions of foreign nations and governments without whom the Bahamian economy would be in dire straits. It is much better that concerns are voiced in an open forum where Bahamians can hear them long before our failure to address them leads to other governments and/or corporate entities adopting hostile policies. We can only be proactive with our policies if we are informed about all the issues, otherwise we are condemned to the reactive mindset that has dominated our history thus far. Let the press be open to all voices that are concerned with the Bahamas.

The United States, in its current incarnation, might not be the greatest beacon of democracy in the world, but the principles enshrined in its constitution are still the noblest that man has conceived to date. In particular, the principle of Freedom of Speech: the Bahamas would do well to adopt and protect this principle.

I thank you for your many insightful articles and I look forward to many more.

[Arthur Foulkes]

Dear Mr. Christen
Sorry I've just got around to this. I have no problem with what you say. I only reserve the right to respond to what Mr. Blankenship says and to say what I think about how he says it. I never suggested that he should not be allowed to speak.

[Arthur Foulkes]

Rick
Give the Cubans a pass on what things? What do they have to do with Ninety Knowles' extradition? I don't recall "the Cubans" saying anything about it.

[Etienne Christen]

Dear Sir Arthur:

Thanks for responding. I am glad that is your view. My comment wasn't so much a direct response to your article only, but a response to a trend I hear often in the Bahamas. A trend I thought I detected echoes of which in your article - I stand corrected. There is a serious problem in the country in respect to the view of 'outsiders' versus 'insiders'. It is 'outsiders' who bring in tourist dollars, it is 'outsiders' who bring in foreign capital which fuels the growth of the Bahamian economy and it is 'outsiders' who utilise our financial services and sustain the professional class of bankers and lawyers in the country. The views of these people matter greatly, because ultimately, if the Bahamas is a corporation, then they are our customers. That is an understanding that doesn't seem to exist for many Bahamians. The Bahamian experience is a product that we offer to the world - the world's people (but in particular Americans) are our customers and we need to know what they think of our product.

The airport is a good example. It would be excellent if someone who had access to investigative means would do a cross study on the airport in Panama (Tocumen), which was privatised about 2 years ago and the one in Nassau. The case study would be most instructive as to why Nassau has achieved one thing: renaming the airport for political ends and Panama has achieved something else: improving the service of the main airport of its country to such an extent that it is difficult to recognise the airport only 2 years later. Panama has a goal: to make itself the commercial hub of central and south America. In order to do that, it listened to all the 'outsiders' who knew a thing or two about running airports and pursued that goal. In the Bahamas, fat cats with selfish aims continue to hamper any major reform projects - whether it is BTC's privatisation or the airports. I point out though, in both these cases they have been very good at renaming these institutions. Its all smoke and hot air and we really need to get cooking if this country is going to go from underdeveloped to truly developing nation and beyond.

[Linda Braun]

Hi Etienne.
You said a mouth full and more.Good for you. Its time the young people of this Country stand up and say what they feel. Keep it up.