NIA CHARLESTOWN NEVIS (February 26, 2025)- The following is an Op-ed contributed by the Honourable Mark A. G. Brantley, Premier of Nevis and Leader of the Opposition of St. Kitts and Nevis

The Appearance of Justice is as Important as Justice Itself

As an active politician within the Eastern Caribbean region, I am often hesitant to put pen to paper on matters impacting the administration of justice within the region lest I be accused of interference with the independence of the judiciary and trespassing on to the time honoured separation of powers that allows the Judiciary the critically important independence to dispense justice to the powerful and the powerless in equal measure.

However, there are times when events are such that they can have far reaching consequences for the very administration of justice that we are all committed to protect.

An inviolable pillar of our regional democracies is the rule of law. It is the foundation on which all other norms are constructed. At its core, it emphasizes that no man is above the law and that the law applies in equal measure and rigour to the rich and the poor, to the strong and the weak. But while that is the consequence of the rule of law, the often ignored yet fundamental reason why regional governments, institutions and, most importantly, our regional population adhere to the rule of law is the respect and reverence that our region holds for the administration and administrators of justice. If the day ever comes when the man on the Charlestown omnibus or the woman at the Castries market starts to lose that respect and reverence for the administration and, by extension, the administrators of justice in the Eastern Caribbean then we set our collective feet upon a slippery slope.

It is for this very good reason why commentary on matters pending before the Court are severely restricted as such matters are sub judice. It is for this very good reason why openly attacking and denigrating the Court or Judges thereof is punishable as contempt of court. It is for this very good reason that most Judges conduct themselves in their public lives in a particular manner many preferring to be cloistered and generally distant from those who may come to seek justice. Indeed even the Parliaments in the region, notwithstanding their status as co-equal branches of the troika of powers in the State, expressly restrain and limit their members from addressing matters which are sub judice and more generally from commenting on the conduct of members of the judiciary within the OECS. (See for example Section 43 of the Fourth Schedule to the National Assembly Elections Act Cap 2.01 St Kitts and Nevis “Standing Orders of the National Assembly”).

Against this backdrop then, I have been very troubled by a recent claim brought before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court seeking judicial review of the appointment of Justice of Appeal Eddy Ventose to the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean. The claim doesn’t trouble me because it was brought. The fact that it was brought is testament to our belief in the rule of law and our confidence in the administration and administrators of justice in our region. The case troubles me because since its filing, Justice of Appeal Eddy Ventose has continued to sit as a member of the Court of Appeal in the various jurisdictions of the OECS without apparent let or hindrance. For example on February 12, 2025, just 2 weeks ago, Justice of Appeal Ventose delivered a leading judgment in Minister of Health and Environment et al v. Shaniel Howe et al (SVGHCVVAP2023/0003) a case of significant importance arising out of the deemed dismissal of workers in St. Vincent and the Grenadines refusing to vaccinate during the COVID-19 pandemic. (See also Sylvia O’Mard v. ABI Bank et al (ANUHCVAP2021/00100 decided 10th December, 2024 and Electrical Associates Ltd et al v. Sunrod Property Inc(SLUHCMAP2024/0001) decided 10th December, 2024)

It is not the intent of this short note to assess the merits or otherwise of the case that has been filed seeking judicial review of the decision to appoint Mr Ventose as a Justice of Appeal. It will ultimately be for the Court to determine whether he was properly qualified for appointment and therefore lawfully appointed to the Court of Appeal. If the Court ultimately finds that Mr Ventose was properly appointed, then that is an end of the matter. My concern at this point however is what if the Court finds otherwise? Put bluntly, what would be the effect on the administration of justice in the OECS if the Court were to find that Mr Ventose was not qualified and therefore improperly appointed to the Court of Appeal? And if that is a live consideration and possibility (as it must be in contested litigation) then why is the administration of justice in the OECS not safeguarding itself from any possible negative fall out flowing from that possibility.

I wonder aloud for example what would be the status of decisions from the Court of Appeal where Justice of Appeal Ventose presided? What would be the status of decisions from the Court of Appeal where Justice of Appeal Ventose was a member of the panel especially if those decisions were not unanimous? And if in unanimous decisions of the Court of Appeal what would be the status of such decisions if the panel was tainted with unqualified membership? What would be the position where the decision of the Court was that of Justice of Appeal Ventose with whom other members of the panel concurred? What does the possible uncertainty do to litigants who come to seek justice and to commercial interests that look to the Court for guidance, reliability and predictability of outcomes? But even more fundamentally to the rule of law in the sub region, how will this all look to that man on the Charlestown omnibus or that woman in the Castries market?

If the intention is to avoid any controversy or appearance of controversy then on one view it is open to Justice of Appeal Ventose to voluntarily step aside until the judicial review proceedings are concluded. Indeed I would argue that that is the type of temperament and level of self awareness that our judicial officers must have as they too must be concerned that justice not only be done but that it manifestly be seen to be done. This applies to matters in which they are asked to adjudicate and even more so in matters where the adjudication directly involves them. It may also be possible for the Judicial and Legal Services Commission or the Chief Justice to request that Justice of Appeal Ventose step aside from sitting as a Court of Appeal Judge or decline from scheduling him to so sit pending the adjudication and conclusion of this matter. Again that would demonstrate that the perception of the rule of law which is so critical to the continued respect for the rule of law is given paramountcy.

What I believe is not acceptable is that those charged with upholding this critical foundation of our OECS States continue to act as if all is well and that there is nothing to worry about. In all that we say and do, we must never ever forget that the appearance of justice is as important as justice itself.

The Honourable Mark A. G. Brantley 

Premier of Nevis 

Leader of the Opposition of St. Kitts and Nevis