DONNA PROWELL has been a good friend of mine since 1986. Although we haven't spoken for a long time I would be more than surprised to learn that she had changed in any significant manner over the years. She has always been very smart, well balanced, and 'clued in' to the country and to what was going on. Frankly, I wasn't at all surprised when I had heard that she had been made the Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and felt that she was an excellent choice.
Frankly, nothing that has happened recently has done anything to make me think that I should change my (obviously) very high opinion of her. That is why I was so surprised when I read that a High Court judge had been very critical of her and that there was even some speculation that she might be a little racist. Let me put that particular allegation to rest: Donna is NOT racist and even to suggest that remotely is a terrible defamation of her. but this is not the first time (nor, sadly, will it be the last) when a judge gets things wrong and in getting it wrong causes most unnecessary mischief.
People need to understand that a law is simply a rule by which the society agrees to be bound; whether that rule is a good or bad one is beside the point. We put people in there to pronounce on these rules and to interpret them where necessary. But the fact is that the judges are by and large ordinary people who, while deserving of respect, can and, more often than not, do get things wrong. Just because a judge has pronounced on a matter does not make it right. It simply means that a judge has given an opinion on some matter. But then, that is why we have effectively two separate rights of appeal.
No. While I absolutely respect the judge's right to give an opinion as she sees it in this matter, I say unequivocally that, with respect, she is wrong. Her judgement had nothing to do with the Donna Prowell that I have known over the years. I also think that her comments as reported were gratuitous and did nothing to address the root of the matter before her.
Certainly, the judgement as reported in the newspapers does not seem to have dealt with Ms. Prowell's affidavit evidence nor with the fact that Ms. Bhajan had purportedly been appointed by the President without the knowledge or approval of the EOC. Frankly, It is surprising that a judge would choose to make the comments that this one did, without actually taking the 'live' evidence of witnesses and then coming to the conclusions that she did. For example, Ms. Prowell's affidavit alludes to the fact that Ms. Bhajan, though required by the Act under which she was seeking appointment, did not have the necessary experience of at least 10 years as laid down by the statute. And yet, this seems to have been completely ignored by the judge.
There are other things that lead me to believe that something is dreadfully wrong here. But that is not the point of this post. My point here is that I think that the judge got it all wrong and has thoroughly screwed up her judgement. Do I respect her judgement? Absolutely, but do I think that she was wrong? Yes. Clearly.
