The Court of Appeal has ruled that a constitutional rights violation occurred in the cases of Hugo Patt and Dean Barrow. The decision confirms major legal wins for both men and upholds their awarded damages.
Hugo Patt, former Deputy Prime Minister, challenged the Commission of Inquiry formed in 2021. That commission investigated the sale of government assets under the previous administration. It named Patt in its final report without giving him a chance to respond. The court found this to be a clear constitutional rights violation.
Justice Lisa Shoman ruled that the Commission failed in multiple ways. It did not send a Salmon letter, which warns individuals before publishing damaging claims. It also failed to disclose key documents. Most importantly, it gave Patt no real opportunity to defend himself.
The government appealed, arguing that Patt’s emotional damages were excessive. However, the Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The judges accepted Patt’s testimony describing distress and harm to his reputation. They said his account was clear and credible.
The court also approved both compensatory and vindicatory damages. It emphasized the need to punish such breaches and prevent future violations.
Similarly, Dean Barrow also won his appeal. The court found that the Commission named and accused him without allowing a proper response. Barrow was publicly accused of mismanagement and even criminal behavior.
The Supreme Court called it a “blatant violation” of natural justice. The Court of Appeal agreed and upheld his $185,000 in damages. This includes $125,000 for emotional harm and $60,000 for vindication.
Barrow was also awarded full legal costs. The court struck out all parts of the report mentioning him. Only general recommendations remain.
These rulings highlight the importance of due process. They also send a strong message: no commission can ignore basic legal rights.
