NASSAU- Director of public prosecutions Garvin Gaskin has won an appeal on a point of law over who he can designate to sign a voluntary bill of indictment.
The dispute arose after Canes Villus alleged that he had not been properly committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court on four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse because an African lawyer, who doesn’t have the right to practice in the Bahamian courts, signed the VBI on behalf of the DPP.
In an October decision, Justice Deborah Fraser agreed that Villus’ indictment was invalid since assistant director of public prosecutions, David Bakibinga, is not a qualified legal practitioner, as required by Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, the Court of Appeal said the judge was wrong to declare the VBI a nullity.
Appeal Court President Sir Michael Barnett said, “There is nothing in that section which prevents the Attorney General/DPP from authorizing any person from acting as his agent in signing the VBI.
“It specifically authorizes a legal practitioner to do so, but in my judgment, it would be impermissible to construe it as restricting the Attorney General/DPP from exercising his constitutional right to act through any other person he chooses. This construction does not do any violence to the language of section 258 and more importantly it gives effect to his wide powers conferred by Article 78.
Sir Michael continued, “It is not disputed that the person who signed the VBI was an agent of the DPP and authorized by him to sign the VBI. Indeed, the DPP is strenuously defending that action as his own. In the result there is no basis for saying that the VBI was not signed by the DPP or by that the signature on the VBI does not count as the signature of the DPP. For these reasons I do not agree that the VBI is invalid. The Supreme Court cannot treat it as a nullity. It is obliged to act on it.”
However, Sir Michael said the DPP caused the dispute “by acting through persons who are not legal practitioners when he has persons in his employ who are in fact legal practitioners.”
Sir Michael questioned why the DPP had not asked Parliament to amend Section 258 to say that a VBI can be signed by the DPP or any legal officer in his employ.
