Supreme Court Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson on Saturday granted an injunction blocking the demolition of shantytown structures.
The government had given residents of most shantytowns on New Providence until August 10 to leave before demolition begins.The injunction was granted a day after the judge granted leave for a judicial review of the government’s actions regarding the shantytowns.
On Friday, the judge agreed to hear the injunction application at 1 p.m. on Saturday via telephone conference.It is unclear how long the injunction is in place.
“The exact terms of the injunction are being discussed between [attorney] Fred Smith and myself because I don’t accept that his interpretation of what the judge said is correct,” said Attorney General Carl Bethel. “I’ve sent him some wording that reflects my view of what I heard the judge say and so I’m waiting to hear from him.
“Whatever the actual wording was the judge clearly issued an injunction restraining any steps towards any sort of relocation or removal of derelict structures past the 10th deadline.
The attorney general stressed that as the matter is now in court, it would be inappropriate for him to deal with the merits of the case.
But he said there is no possibility that demolition will commence when the deadline expires on Friday.Lawyers representing a group of 177 shantytowns residents – including some people who live in Abaco shantytowns – filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review last Tuesday.
The applicants are seeking a declaration that the decisions made as a part of the government’s shantytown eradication program are unconstitutional, and are therefore void, illegal and of no effect.
Among other reliefs, they are seeking an order restraining the government from entering the shantytowns and causing any utilities connected to it to be disconnected other than according to law.
They are also seeking damages for the “infringement” of the applicants’ constitutional rights.
That application also sought an interim injunction “pending the determination of this action or pending determination of this application or until further order restraining the respondents directly or through their agents, appointees or employees from taking possession of, demolishing any building on, or otherwise interfering with the individual applicants’ and other residents’ and occupiers’ enjoyment of land in shantytowns throughout The Bahamas, including by disconnecting any utilities other than pursuant to the relevant enabling legislation.”
“The application is about the lawfulness of the decisions by which the government respondents are seeking to implement the policy, and the constitutionality of the policy itself,” the court document states.
“In essence they have presumed a right to take possession of land where no right has been established or lawfully exercised, and they have used unlawful threats to demolish buildings and disconnect utilities as a proxy for taking possession. “More generally, the policy is unconstitutional because in applying only to the areas the government has designated as shantytowns it discriminates unlawfully against people of Haitian race or origin.”
