At the top of the news, you saw our interview with Solicitor General Nigel Hawke where he was speaking about the judgement from the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Well, right after that court appearance in Belize City, he had to rush to Belmopan to appear as a witness in the 40th session of the Senate Hearings on Immigration.
Now, Hawke wasn't in the hot seat. The senators only wanted his professional opinions on several different issues, as the lead administrator in the Attorney General's Ministry.
This afternoon, he testified for an hour about the legal implications of some of the findings of the Auditor General.
They asked him about those ill- gotten nationalities, and who in the Immigration Ministry is to be held accountable for the numerous cases of persons getting Belizean citizenship that they were not entitled to.
So far, the public officers who've come to testify have been passing off blame for what happened to someone else, kind of like a hot potato.
The Senate Committee asked him about that:
Eamon Courtenay - Senator for the Opposition
"The question is where nationality is granted to a person who it is subsequently found out did not qualify, ultimately who is responsible for the grant of that nationality?"
Nigel Hawke - Solicitor General
"In my respectful opinion it will be, in the case of immigration, it will be the departmental head, in this case, the director of immigration. In my humble opinion the minister has to rely on the competency of officers who have been employed to carry out their function with due diligence. I think it would not be in good practice for the minister to have to scrutinize documents at a level where he is relegated to almost a reviewing clerk. So you have to assume that when the document comes before the subject minister that it would have been properly vetted. That is the assumption that you have to make given our present structure in the public service."
Eamon Courtenay - Senator for the Opposition
"So, in so far as the grant of nationality is concerned, the person who is responsible is the director who makes that recommendation. The assumption is that the director has checked all that has been contained in the file and has satisfied himself or herself that the applicant meets the requirement and therefore makes the recommendation."
Nigel Hawke - Solicitor General
"That is my humble opinion and even if the director has issues on the face of an application there is always the option of contacting the solicitor general for a viewer opinion if there is some suspicion in the document. I know we are living in an age now where probably you need to double check and scrutinize but traditionally that is how the system is structured."
Email
Print