AN ESSAY BY MIGUEL TAYLOR
Miguel Taylor, 43, currently resides in Grand Bahama, navigating the currents of the public service as a Communications professional, while eloquently crafting poems and essays that illuminate Bahamian life and other compelling subjects.
The Scales of Justice and the Public Purse:
Why the Judiciary Must Not Guard the Treasury
A short essay by Miguel Taylor
As an ordinary citizen of The Bahamas, and a fierce advocate for our constitutional rights, I find it deeply troubling when our judicial system, intentionally or unintentionally, acts as a de facto guardian of the public purse rather than the unyielding protector of the citizenry. When the State, through its agents, violates a citizen, and the evidence unequivocally supports that egregious claim, the State must be compelled to pay. And not just pay, but pay handsomely.
The notion that our courts should somehow temper justice with fiscal prudence is a dangerous fallacy. It transforms the judiciary from an impartial arbiter of rights into an economic gatekeeper, a secondary branch of the Ministry of Finance. This misdirection of purpose fundamentally undermines the very bedrock of our constitutional democracy. The State, by its nature, holds immense power over the individual. When that power is abused, when its agents act with impunity or negligence, the harm inflicted upon the citizen is often profound, extending far beyond quantifiable losses.
Consider the metaphor of a broken promise. When an individual breaks a solemn vow, there are consequences, often financial. Why should the State, with its colossal resources and constitutional obligations, be held to a lesser standard? To suggest that large payouts would “drain the treasury” is to place the financial health of the State above the fundamental rights of its people. This is a perverse calculus. The true cost of systemic injustice far outweighs any monetary settlement. It erodes public trust, fosters cynicism, and ultimately destabilizes the social contract.
Moreover, inadequate compensation for State-sanctioned harm perpetuates a cycle of impunity. If the financial repercussions of violating a citizen’s rights are negligible, what disincentive exists for future misconduct? A judiciary that consistently awards paltry sums, ostensibly to “protect the treasury,” inadvertently becomes an enabler of State malfeasance. It is akin to a doctor administering a placebo for a life-threatening illness; the symptoms may be temporarily masked, but the underlying disease festers.
The State is not some ethereal entity, immune to accountability. It is a collective of individuals and institutions that must operate within the confines of the law. When those confines are breached, and a citizen is demonstrably harmed, the remedy must be commensurate with the wrong. This is not about punitive enrichment; it is about restorative justice and, crucially, about establishing a powerful deterrent. A significant financial judgment serves as a resounding declaration that the State cannot act outside the law without severe consequences. It forces a rigorous internal audit, incentivizes better training, and cultivates a culture of respect for individual rights within the various State agencies.
Therefore, our judiciary must shed any vestige of being the treasury’s silent guardian. Its singular, paramount duty is to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of every Bahamian citizen. When the State transgresses, and the evidence is clear, the hammer of justice must fall swiftly and decisively, ensuring that the State is made to pay, not just for the harm inflicted, but for the fundamental breach of trust. Only then can our constitutional rights truly be considered sacrosanct, and not mere rhetorical flourishes.