A series of decisions by Attorney General (AG) Allyson Maynard-Gibson has raised serious questions about her conduct in office over the past three years. There is widespread concern that she has politicized the office and has attempted to duck responsibility for troubling decisions. The latest matter involves her decision to appoint a former judge to review the government's handling of the release of a report on the Rubis gas leak.

The Tribune reported: "Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson yesterday dodged questions over whether the government should have expedited the release of an independent report into the 2012 underground gas leak in the Marathon community and related public health assessments, stating that she was not an expert.

"She also dismissed calls for an independent committee to review the government's handling of the matter and determine whether there was criminal negligence."

In a classic case of misdirection Maynard-Gibson stated: "I don't want to comment on timeline because I'm not an expert. What I would say is that it could appear to me that there may be some of what I would call, working in silos. All of the experts in the various branches of government are obviously working hard and it could be that they're working in silos rather than all of us working together coordinating efforts."

This is rich. It is a variation on the "mistakes were made" formulation often used to pass the buck on a decision. The reality is that it was the Cabinet that sat on the report, failing to release it in a timely manner. And it was the attorney general in particular who sat on the report and only released it after public pressure.

As reported in one of the dailies: "Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald and Environment Minister Kenred Dorsett have said the report came to Cabinet and was turned over to the attorney general, who was to determine when the report would be released."

Smug attempt
This talk of her not being an expert and people operating in silos has nothing to do with the timing of the release of the report. It is a smug attempt to shift the blame to bureaucrats. The silo into which the report fell, unable to see the light of day, was the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

The smug condescension continued: "I again don't want to point fingers, I don't think it is worthy of us to point fingers when it is clear that everybody does care, is concerned and wants to exercise all of our energy to addressing this serious matter."

The claim that she does not want to point fingers is gross hypocrisy and exactly an attempt to point fingers elsewhere. Fingers should be pointed at the attorney general and the Cabinet. It is "worthy" for Bahamians to know that it is the AG who stalled the release of the report.

Recall that the AG finally apologized along with other ministers for the delay in releasing the report, after she initially suggested that the release of the report had not been delayed. What curious backtracking and how disingenuous. Her initial political instinct was to suggest that there was no delay. When this backfired, she backtracked.

When her incredible and unbelievable - in both senses of the word - statement wilted under public pressure, the AG flip-flopped opting this time for contrition and humility. Unbelievable, especially as humility is not one of the attributes associated with this attorney general.

Then there was this laughable and contemptible statement by the AG.

"We in the government under no circumstances will allow this very serious matter to be used as a political football," she said.

The very government that sat on the report and is playing politics in order to shift blame and save face is attempting to say with a straight face that the whole matter is above politics. It is precisely a matter for political debate in our system of government.

In a disgraceful display of petty politics, supporters of Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald were bussed in to cheer him on at a town hall meeting on the gas leak.

The government, including Fitzgerald, voted down the formation of a parliamentary committee to investigate the fuel leak. Maynard-Gibson also dismissed the idea of an independent committee to review how the government handled the release of the report. If the government has nothing to hide, why has it dismissed an independent review of the entire affair?

Face saving
The latest political ploy by the government was the announcement of a retired judge to review the delayed release of the report. It is a sheer attempt at face-saving by the AG.

In announcing the review by a former judge the AG engaged in bureaucratic gobbledygook meant to divert attention from her failure to act in a timely manner and to be held responsible.

She chimed: "The review is intended to ensure that the processes to support future investigations and enquiries conducted in the public interest are managed according to international best practices, as well as to ensure timely disclosure when these reports are going to be made public."

Imagine someone stealing $1 million out of someone else's account and then when caught suggesting the appointment of another individual to investigate why they stole the money. Again, unbelievable.

At the April 16 town meeting Philip Weech, director of the Bahamas Environment Science and Technology Commission, noted that the Rubis report was not previously released because the AG had not given permission for its release. What we need to know plain and simple is why the AG sat on the report. She needs to accept primary responsibility in this matter rather than shift blame elsewhere.

One of the most alarming developments of the AG's tenure was the grant of a nolle prosequi by then Acting AG Jerome Fitzgerald when Maynard-Gibson was out of the country. The grant of a nolle prosequi is a serious matter and a rare occurrence. Such a grant should be done by the substantive AG. But conveniently such a grant was made to former clients of Maynard-Gibson when she was away from the country. The whole affair stinks to high heaven.

Why didn't Maynard-Gibson grant the nolle prosequi herself? Why was it done when she was out of the country? Did the AG know that the acting AG was going to grant the nolle prosequi? The fact that it was granted to former clients of the AG raises all manner of deeply troubling questions.

The former administration found cause to prosecute the individuals. Yet, suddenly under a new administration the nolle prosequi was granted, with little explanation and smug indifference by the AG who has yet to explain in serious terms what occurred.

The public can only be left wondering why such a grant was made, with many concluding that rank favoritism was at play, along with other questionable reasons.

Serious questions

The V. Alfred Gray matter has also raised serious questions about the AG's conduct in office. Gray, minister of agriculture and marine resources and the MP for MICAL, admitted to calling the family island administrator in Mayaguana to discuss the case of a constituent who was convicted of a charge. The administrator eventually dismissed the conviction and released the young man. Surprise, surprise, the AG declined to charge Gray. She stated that there was too much conflicting evidence.

Isn't sorting out conflicting evidence the task of a magistrate or a jury? There is no conflicting evidence as to the admitted fact by Gray that he initiated two calls to the administrator to discuss the case. It seems an inconvenient fact for the AG.

The AG's decision not to prosecute provided the cover Prime Minister Perry Christie needed to retain in his Cabinet a minister who should have been immediately fired for gross interference in a judicial matter, breaching judicial independence.

Earlier this year the prime minister caused the appointment of a number of Queen's Counsels, among them Maynard-Gibson, who obviously delighted in becoming the first female QC.

Despite there being other more seasoned female attorneys and more deserving, she was the only woman recognized. How odd. And it seemed unbecoming for the sitting AG to accept such an honor, especially as she would have had to recommend herself, while failing to recommend any other women.

It is the sort of smug privilege and arrogance for which this attorney general has become known throughout her public career. It also speaks to the quality of her service over the past three years as she has politicized the OAG and seems more interested in the service of the powerful, the rich and the connected. Her smarminess and attitude on a range of matters is one thing. But her questionable actions on the delayed Rubis gas leak report, the grant of a nolle prosequi to a former client of hers when she was out of the country, and a host of other decisions, suggest that she is no longer fit to service as attorney general, an office in which the judgment and decisions by the holder must be beyond reproach.

Maynard-Gibson no longer meets the standard of holding this office, with many Bahamians disgusted and alarmed by questionable decisions on her part.

o frontporchguardian@gmail.com, www.bahamapundit.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian