By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE government was banned yesterday from further demolishing shanty town structures across Abaco after a Supreme Court judge rejected its bid to have the island’s shanty towns removed as beneficiaries of a standing injunction centred on demolition of unregulated communities.

In her ruling yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson ordered that her standing injunction, which prohibits the government from evicting shanty town residents and disconnecting services in their communities, be extended to include all unregulated communities in Abaco.

She also ordered the government to “cease and desist” from “any further interference” with the respective communities until the outcome of the pending judicial review and also admonished officials for moving to demolish the structures without first getting approval from the court.

Her ruling came weeks after the government launched a joint sting operation on the remaining shanty towns in Abaco and began demolishing newly built structures. Many of the unregulated communities on the island were destroyed by Hurricane Dorian and later cleared by the government in the aftermath of the storm.

Yesterday, Justice Grant-Thompson said the decision to clear and remove shanty town homes after the storm casts the allusion of an “act first” and “ask questions later” policy, again reiterating that the court should have been consulted beforehand.

The government has contended that many of the homes demolished were in contravention of the law, a point the opposing side has refuted. The attorneys representing the shanty town residents and non-profit group Respect our Homes Ltd in the judicial proceedings have argued that many of the structures removed were capable of being repaired and were not in breach of any law.

Yesterday, Justice Grant-Thompson said in any event, if the government seeks to demolish homes found in contravention of the law, officials must get permission from the court moving forward. This, she added, will ensure fairness to the process until the matter has been concluded.

“The Injunction now fully covers Abaco,” she said. “This simply means that prior to any further demolition taking place on the island of Abaco, evidence that the homes selected for demolition are in fact in breach of the law should first be presented to and approved by the court. This order of the court is to take immediate effect.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court granted an injunction protecting shanty town homes in New Providence as well as in Abaco “as is occupied by specific applicants” from destruction pending an outcome of a judicial review over the matter.

However, after Hurricane Dorian hit Abaco in 2019, the government sought to have the 2018 injunction varied to exclude Abaco shanty towns and their residents, insisting they no longer needed to be protected as the communities were virtually wiped out by the storm.

The move was not supported by attorneys representing the applicants for the judicial review, however, who argued against it and subsequently asked the court to consider extending the injunction to include all shanty towns across the country, including Abaco “in its entirety”.

Fred Smith, QC—the lead counsel—Martin Lundy II and others represent the applicants in the matter.

In March, the group then filed an urgent appeal asking the courts to vary the injunction as they feared it was a “real possibility” the government would destroy or seize the homes of applicants in Abaco before the proceedings were heard and adjudicated upon.

Delivering her ruling in relation to the aforementioned matters, Justice Grant-Thompson denied the government’s request to exclude Abaco from the injunction, making the case that even if one home had been left standing, the injunction would still prevail.

She also rejected the applicants’ bid to have the injunction extended to include all shanty towns across The Bahamas.

However, she added: “The alternative request of the applicants to extend the injunction to cover the island of Abaco in its entirety is granted. In making this decision, it is important to note that based on the state of the substantive proceedings which are in its final stages, the court does not anticipate that this extension will be in existence for more than three months.”

The Supreme Court judge went on to chastise the government for moving to eradicate structures in the communities in the aftermath of Dorian without seeking to get permission from the court.

Justice Grant-Thompson said while the government has a right to demolish or clear down homes in violation of the law, evidence must still be presented to the court before action is taken to ensure that they are not breaching the current injunction.

She said: “Hurricane Dorian appeared to have provided the impetus to eradicate structures without undue concern for the nature of the claim, if any, by the applicants and with no apparent or real consideration for whether the land belonged to Bahamians, persons with legal rights to the land, persons in adverse possession, or persons with rights arising under the Constitution.

“Dorian, in the view of the court, was used as a shield to remove structures with no reference to the court,” she continued. “…It is important to note that the injunction ordered by this court was in place prior to both Hurricane Dorian and the enactment of the Disaster Reconstruction Authority Act (2019). Prior to any demolition on the island of Abaco directly related to the Disaster Reconstruction Authority Act in the areas commonly referred to as ‘shanty towns’, the court should have been included to ensure the actions taken were not in violation of the Injunction.”

Last week, Works Minister Desmond Bannister told reporters his ministry spearheaded the demolition of over 40 structures on Abaco, with more targeted for demolition in the weeks ahead.

However, yesterday’s ruling will put a wrench in the government’s demolition plans on the island.

Asked to respond to the Supreme Court ruling, Attorney General Carl Bethel told The Tribune the government planned to appeal the interlocutory order.

“The order is being appealed on the basis of urgency,” Mr Bethel said yesterday. “As it is an interlocutory appeal, we will first have to apply to the judge for leave to appeal. If she refuses, we can then go to the Court of Appeal and if she grants leave. We can go to the Court of Appeal.”