By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

AMENDING the constitution on the controversial issue of capital punishment is not a matter of posturing or gimmickry, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said.

Speaking to members of the judiciary during the Legal Year Opening Ceremony in Supreme Court, Mrs Maynard-Gibson reaffirmed the statement of Prime Minister Perry Christie a week ago that “serious consideration” was being given to the issue of capital punishment.

“As the Prime Minister has already indicated, serious consideration is being given to the matter of a constitutional amendment in relation to capital punishment,” she said.

“This amendment will require a referendum as it would amend the entrenched privileges of the constitution. Amending of the constitution, milord, is not a matter of posturing or gimmickry. It must be done with prayerful consideration and a magnitude of public education.”

“The Constitutional Commission, milord, will in short order speak more fully on this matter,” she told Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett.

The Constitutional Reform Commission was appointed by the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the Constitution of the Bahamas and recommend changes to it.

The commission was also expected: to examine complex questions relating to the regulation of the relationship between state power and the individual, the retention and enforcement of capital punishment, whether the Bahamas should remain a constitutional monarchy or evolve into a republic and if the Caribbean Court of Justice or perhaps the final local court should replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal.

Regarding the London-based Privy Council, the country’s highest court has been portrayed as an obstacle to the Bahamas carrying out the death penalty after declaring in 2006 that the country’s mandatory death penalty upon a murder conviction was unconstitutional.

Five years later, in June 2011, the high court overturned Maxo Tido’s death sentence in connection with the killing 16-year-old Donnell Connover, whose body was found off Cowpen Road, battered and bruised, her skull crushed. There was additional evidence that parts of her body were burned after her death.

But the Privy Council concluded that the murder was not an example of the “worst of the worst”.

In November 2011, parliament passed legislation to define the types of murder constituting the “worst of the worst” guidelines set out by the high court.

Despite this, Sean McWeeny, QC, Constitutional Reform Commission chairman, doubted whether the changes will matter to the Privy Council.

Speaking on the matter in April 2013 in response to a question raised at the commission’s first town hall meeting, Mr McWeeny said that “as long as the Privy Council remains your final court of appeal, it is extremely doubtful that you will ever be able to hang anyone.”

It was suggested at the commission meeting that the Bahamian government move to sever ties with the Privy Council.

Last year, in criminal cases followed by The Tribune, crown prosecutors sought the death penalty for six men in four separate murder cases.

The first was Simeon Bain, a man who was accused of the September 19, 2009, death of 21-year-old Rashad Morris, murdering the fast food restaurant manager after seducing and robbing him.

Bain denied all charges against him: murder, robbery, attempted robbery, housebreaking, and kidnapping. On May 2, 2013, he was unanimously convicted of all the charges, save attempted robbery.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment by Justice Indra Charles on the assessment that the case did not represent an example of the “worst of the worst” – the threshold for capital punishment set by the London-based Privy Council.

The second instance was the case of Anthony Clarke Sr for the September 16, 2011, murder of Aleus Tilus. During Clarke’s trial, the prosecution produced a confession statement in which the Mount Pleasant Village resident purportedly owned up to the murder.

He allegedly told police he was paid “a lot of money” by a man, who was not named, to kill Tilus because of an ongoing dispute before the Labour Board, between Tilus and his employer.

The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict and the prosecutor Ambrose Armbrister indicated the Crown’s intention to seek the death penalty.

On October 10, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs, taking into account the submissions from the prosecution and defence attorneys and the probation and psychiatric reports, agreed to the Crown’s request to sentence Clarke to death for Tilus’s murder.

Crown prosecutors further sought the death penalty for Kofhe Goodman, who stood trial between April 17 and August 2, 2013, in connection with the murder of Marco Archer. He was found guilty of the charge despite his not guilty plea.

After ruling that the case for death was a compelling one, having taken into account the circumstances of the case and Goodman’s criminal history, Justice Bernard Turner sentenced Goodman to death on October 29, 2013.

Crown prosecutors were anticipating a similar ruling in the sentencing of Stephen ‘Die’ Stubbs, Andrew ‘Yogi’ Davis, and Clinton ‘Russ’ Evans for the 1999 murder of Constable Jimmy Ambrose.

A day after the Goodman sentencing, Supreme Court Justice Roy Jones rejected the Crown’s request for the death penalty, ruling that, based on the circumstances, the murder of the policeman could not be categorised as an example of an extreme and exceptional case, or the “worst of the worst”.

Justice Jones also rejected the argument of the Crown that it was an extreme and exceptional murder.

Justice Jones also pointed out that the prosecution’s failure to serve the necessary notice of their intent to seek the death penalty “is sufficient to withhold the application of the death penalty to these convicts in this case.”

All four matters are currently being contested before the Court of Appeal.