Memorandum submitted by Mrs Jennifer Caines
Thank you for this opportunity to share my observations
and concerns of two different agencies in Bermuda which were specifically
put in place to administer and enforce existing Acts. Those agencies
are The Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Ombudsman for Bermuda.
The Human Rights Commission in Bermuda operates
under the direction of the Minister in charge. The one who oversees
the day to day operation of the Department is the Executive Officer
and there are a few Investigating Officers and clerks who assist.
The Human Rights Commissioners are appointed
by the Governor, on the advice of the Premier, after consultation
with the Leader of the Opposition. The staff of the HRC are public
Officers. The expenses of the Commission are met out of funds
appropriated annually by the legislation.
Although all persons lawfully residing in Bermuda
are entitled to equality, dignity and freedom from acts of discrimination
on various grounds, and are supposed to be protected from reprisal
acts if they do complain to the HRC, there is one particular case
that comes to mind which was not handled fairly.
My husband, Mr Ahmed-Troy Caines is a Civil
Servant with the Bermuda Government and is prevented from speaking
publicly. I, however, am a former civil servant and I have seen
first hand how these agencies operate and how policies and procedures
are disregarded.
In my view, what I see happening is that the
process is merely an information gathering opportunity for these
agencies to navigate around complaints against the Bermuda Government.
When there's a policy of Bermudianization which
clearly states that qualified Bermudians will be hired over non-Bermudians
(persons who are not Bermudian) and the Bermudian applicants are
told that based on their resumes, they are considered unsuitable
and the Bermuda Government then hires a Canadian who is even less
qualified, who was considered suitable although she lacked the
required qualifications, then that to me should have been viewed
as discrimination. Instead the process is changed in the midst
of the investigation, thus allowing changes to be made that benefit
the government's position. Barrier exams have been introduced
to block the path of the complainant. This happens even though
the HRC claims that the investigation will be objective, confidential
and fair, and that there are to be no reprisal acts against the
complainant.
Even though it is also stated that obstruction
of an HRC investigation is unlawful, a fiat was issued by the
Governor preventing evidence from being used at the hearing.
If the investigating officer had taken note
to examine the policies and procedures which were in place at
the time the complaint was lodged, the matter would have been
settled at that level and should not have escalated into a hearing,
not to mention the appeal stage.
The Human Rights process in Bermuda is just
a process to cover-up wrongdoing to prevent exposing the bad practices
which are being allowed, especially those complaints involving
Bermuda Government officials.
The introduction of the position of Ombudsman
for Bermuda gave the impression that they were about good governance,
however, having personally submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman
uncovered a one sided investigation. Again, this process should
have been rectified at this stage but the Ombudsman informed me
via telephone and in writing that she saw no maladministration
on the part of the government officials involved. I have since
which proven her wrong and she has made no attempts to apologize
to me for the inconvenience caused or attempt to rectify the situation.
This complaint involved the actions of a lawyer
who ranks #4 on the Bermuda Bar Association's list of seniority
who holds The Bermuda Bar Act 1974 Practising certificate 2008.
Owing to the seniority of this lawyer, it appears that other lawyers
are reluctant to deal with one of their fellow members of the
legal fraternity, especially from this particular law firm as
the senior lawyer serves on some of the government boards. This
same consultant lawyer works for the law firm which represented
the Bermuda Government officials in the most recent gag order
case which the media took to the Privy Council and won. The Honorary
Secretary of the Bermuda Bar Association also works at this law
firm.
A letter expressing the senior lawyer's opinion
was submitted to a government board as fact when its true purpose
was to circumvent the usual process of requiring my consent as
an adjoining landowner of her clients. The fact that they accepted
this information over the legal document that I provided them
with is questionable. If there's a code of conduct for Barristers
and Attorneys in place, and considering the fact that this senior
lawyer provided erroneous information to the government board
without providing legal documents to support her claim, why did
the Ombudsman for Bermuda not recognize this?
If the Foreign Affairs Committee can assist
me in finding answers to these questions upon visiting Bermuda
to conduct this study, then my confidence in the agencies mentioned,
which are there to protect the rights of citizens, would be restored.
31 January 2008
| 
