Eugene Nairn with the Supreme Court judgement.
By LAMECH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
ljohnson@tribunemedia.net
A
FREEMASON has mixed-feelings about his successful landmark civil action
in the Supreme Court seeking redress for his suspension and eventual
expulsion from the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
Eugene
Nairn told The Tribune yesterday that his “reaction is mixed, call it
more-or-less bitter-sweet” concerning last Wednesday’s ruling handed
down by Justice Milton Evans who ruled that masonic jurisprudence does
not and “cannot” overreach the laws of the Bahamas.
“It
isn’t the fact that I won. It’s more of the fact about what masonry has
lost in doing what it did,” he said. “Masonry is a beautiful thing, but
it only takes a few bad apples at the top who think they are a power
unto themselves, that they can go about doing things without any
recourse and that was the principle of the matter.”
“My
constitutional rights, based on the constitution of the Prince Hall
Grand Lodge PHGL), was violated and I saw fit to seek redress in the
courts. They (PHGL) were of the view that whenever a grandmaster makes a
decision, nobody could question it or even have any recourse to have
any type of redress from it.”
“That
was the bottom line and I said ‘no, it’s not right. I will fight it and
I will go to the courts because the letter that they sent me, the Grand
Master at the time Carl Culmer, he took it upon himself to be the
judge, jury and the executioner. So where was I going to go? I couldn’t
go to him so the next best thing was for me to go to the courts of the
land,” Mr Nairn said.
The
Craft of Masonry was passed on through English traditions to the
colonists, including those in the Bahamas. An act of parliament in 1975
established the PGHL.
Mr
Nairn, a past Master of Columbus Lodge under the PHGL, started this
action against PHGL in July 2010, asking the court to determine whether
the purported suspension date in a letter in August 2009 and purported
expulsion in September 2010 were in accordance with the procedure under
Article 25 of the lodge’s constitution which states that “no brother
shall be suspended nor expelled, neither before nor without a fair and
impartial trial after previous service of a formal charge.”
Mr Nairn asked the court to nullify both if it was of the view that the previous question was answered in the negative.
The
PGHL, in court, cited a number of cases to support its argument that
the court should not involve itself in the affairs of a private
organisation, including the decision of Maugham J in Maclean v The
Workers Union 1929 where the headnote states “the court has no
jurisdiction to vary or to set aside the decision of a domestic tribunal
if in giving its decision the tribunal has acted honestly and in
accordance with its own rules and in good faith.”
Justice Evans ruled that masonic jurisprudence does not and “cannot” overreach the laws of The Bahamas.
“Every
citizen of the Bahamas whether he be a mason or non-mason, has the
right to apply to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas for redress and that
right, in no manner whatsoever, be abrogated. The right to fairness and
natural justice is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen and
the courts have been zealous in preserving and giving effect to this
right,” the judge said, adding that principle was clearly inherent in
masonry based on Article 25 of its own constitution.
The
judge ruled that the court did have the jurisdiction to make a
determination on the question raised by the plaintiff and noted that the
purported letter of suspension “is inconsistent with all elements of
fairness.” Mr Nairn was accused of holding private meetings and
attempting to undermine the authority of the Grand Master.
“The
letter makes allegations without providing the source and then proceeds
to make findings and establish penalties, all without setting a date
for a hearing or affording the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The
purported letter of expulsion was infected with the same malady,” the
court added.
Justice
Evans nullified the suspension and expulsion and restored Mr Nairn as a
mason of the PGHL until the Grand Lodge holds a trial in accordance
with their constitution to determine if the allegations of “un-mason
conduct” justifies suspension and/or expulsion.
The
judge also ordered that PGHL, the defendants in the civil action, pay
the legal fees of Mr Nairn “to be taxed if not agreed.”
The Tribune understands that the ruling is being taken to the Court of Appeal.
When asked about his future in masonry, Mr Nairn said: “I have to pray about that.”
“Because
I look at it like this: if you invite me to your house and I disrespect
you and talk bad about you, your family, etc, would you come back to my
house? It depends right? There’s got to be some reconciliation so
that’s where I’m at right now. So I got to pray about that.”
He
also said he’s not looking for any compensation for the amount of dues
he paid during his tenure. “I’m not even looking for it, but over the
past three and a half years or so since this action started I have not
paid anything.”
When
asked if he was concerned for his safety having gone to such lengths
for redress, Mr Nairn dispelled what he called a “misconception” that
things “happen” to lodge members for going against the craft.
“That’s a misconception and no, I’m not concerned about my safety,” he smiled.
He said the only harm that could be and was done to him was that they tried to “tarnish my integrity and my character.”
“You
see when people mess with your name, that’s all I got. But I didn’t
really do this for me ya know? This action was basically taken for
future generations of masonry and for future grand masters that they
would conduct themselves in a way that’s appropriate and that they would
follow their own constitution, and not think that they are powers unto
themselves,” he said.
“They’re men just like me and you, ok?” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment