RELIEVED that his political colleagues had let him off the hook, MICAL MP V Alfred Gray declared in his defence that he would never break the law knowingly.

Many eyebrows were raised hearing this coming from the mouth of a lawyer who knows — or should know — that in law ignorance is no defence.

But on this occasion ignorance was a defence, which excused Mr Gray from the accusation that as a member of government he had interfered with a magistrate in the execution of his duties. This defence also set him apart from the little offender over the hill —a point that Mr Gray and his colleagues seem to have missed. In other words, those at the top failed to set an example. No wonder our prime minister is “walking on egg shells” in dealing with the nation’s lawbreakers in our poorer communities.

Under the Westminster system of government, the tradition is that ignorance of the law is no defence and anyone who has studied Roman law knows that the tradition can be traced as far back as Aristotle, around 335 BC — nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law).

Lately, we have been hearing much criticism of the Westminster system of government. Eyes turn longingly to America, which recently has shown its major weakness in that a President elected by the people has a daily fight to keep the country functioning when his opposition controls both houses of government — the House and the Senate. In other words, instead of battling for the people, the president and his government are battling each other. However, in our Westminster system, when a government is voted in it is able to function because, as the winning party, it controls parliament. Its leader is chosen by the party— not the people. The only problem with the Westminster system is – unlike the UK— Bahamians have not developed with it – or it with them. In other words, it is a good system that has been thrust upon us, and at almost every turn is abused for lack of understanding.

Mr Gray, PLP MP for MICAL, was not only the Minister of Local Government, but also sat in the Christie Cabinet as the Minister of Agriculture and Marine Resources. His difficulty arose when one of his Mayaguana constituents got into trouble with the law, was tried and convicted by island administrator Zephaniah Newbold to three months in prison in Nassau. Mr Gray, asked to intervene by the teenager’s mother, telephoned the administrator — in fact he admits to making two telephone calls. As a result of those calls, the administrator said he felt threatened and released the young man from police custody, despite his conviction. Mr Gray denied ever threatening Mr Newbold, he said he just telephoned to offer “legal advice”. However, the administrator insisted that he felt threatened. Instead of releasing the young man on bail, “after an order came forth”, he freed him from custody with no conditions attached.

Mr Gray was accused of using his position to interfere with the judicial process. Instead of Prime Minister Christie asking for his resignation, Mr Gray asked to be relieved of his Local Government post until after the matter had been investigated. However, he remained in the Christie Cabinet as Agriculture and Marine Resources minister. The matter was referred to the police for investigation.

After the investigation, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson, who is also a member of the Christie Cabinet, decided not to bring charges against anyone.

This led to an uproar by the Opposition, and their eviction from the House by the Speaker, because their table banging prevented Mr Gray from speaking on the floor. The Opposition vowed that as long as they were there, Mr Gray would not be allowed to speak.

If Mr Gray and his colleagues had truly understood their Westminster system of government, all of the uproar could have been avoided. Mr Gray, should have known that he had taken a step too far, admitted his indiscretion, apologised and quietly resigned from Cabinet.

Instead, he broke tradition and with his comments revealed that he had completely misunderstood where he had gone wrong by interpreting the Opposition’s outrage as an attempt “to get” him. He said in his view the Opposition were “never ever interested in justice. They wanted me, no matter what the situation turned out to be”.

Unfortunately, despite all of the furore, Mr Gray has completely missed the point. He does not understand that none of this was ever about him, rather it is about principles, about good government, about setting an example at the top.

The Prime Minister, distraught like the rest of us, complains about having to daily walk on “egg shells” because of the lack of law and order on the streets. He should pause for a moment, and instead of fingerpointing at everyone else, look around him and demand that his government be the first to set the example. If this community is expected to heal itself, example has to come from the top. Now is the time to start. It’s a pity that Mr Gray was not wise enough to take the first step and acknowledge that — maybe not intentionally — but that what he did in Mayaguana was not wise. That there were consequences and he was willing to accept those consequence and pay the price. Instead, his defence was that he was ignorant of the law. Not only has he injured his own reputation, but also that of other members of the Christie cabinet.

We agree with Montagu MP Richard Lightbourne’s objection to the Attorney General’s refusal to “institute criminal proceedings” against any person connected with the Mayaguana dispute because of the conflicting “nature of evidence.” As Mr Lightbourn rightly pointed out in most cases conflicting evidence is the very reason for going to trial.

“We have a situation here where a member of the government has become involved in a matter which has raised serious issues as to whether or not it is something that a minister should have become involved in,” Mr Lightbourn told parliamentarians.

“The matter was reviewed by the attorney general which I would submit in our legal system is totally wrong to have someone who is a member of the same Cabinet determining the issues which involves another member.

“Now the attorney general says, ‘no we can’t charge him, (there is) conflicting evidence.’ That is the whole purpose of having a court. That is the whole purpose of having a jury. So what does that demonstrate to the people of this country? Do we have one law for persons in authority and one law for somebody else? Why do you charge your young men from wherever in town who have drugs on them?”

That is a good question. It is now for our leaders to answer it.