NASSAU, BAHAMAS- A retired Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) sergeant, one of several men implicated in a massive U.S. indictment late last year, has been granted leave to apply for judicial review of his discharge from the force.
The ruling comes after Prince Albert Symonette Jr., argued that he was never afforded a fair hearing or the opportunity to respond to allegations before being relieved of his duties.
Acting Justice Cheryl Bazard KC in her November 10th decision concluded that Symonette has an arguable case, that his rights to due process were violated, and that exceptional circumstances exist to justify judicial review despite the existence of statutory appeal procedures.
Symonette, who enlisted in the RBPF on July 1, 1994, served over 30 years before his dismissal on December 12, 2024. In 2019, he became pensionable and had completed four consecutive 12-month contracts under the Police Act 2009. His discharge followed widespread media reports revealing that his name appeared on a U.S. court indictment related to conspiracy to import cocaine and firearm offenses. According to Symonette’s court filings, he first learned of the indictment via social media and news outlets on November 27, 2024.
According to Symonette’s judicial review application, Assistant Commissioner Damien Robinson summoned him to a December 12 meeting with then-Commissioner of Police Clayton Fernander. At that meeting, Symonette claims he was verbally accused of corruption, verbally attacked, and handed a discharge certificate dated December 2, 2024—ten days prior—effectively terminating his employment without any opportunity to respond.
Fernander, now retired, and recently appointed The Bahamas Consul General to Toronto Canada presented a different account in his affidavit. He stated that Symonette’s year-to-year contract had expired and that the decision to dismiss him was unanimous among senior executives, citing the negative publicity from the U.S. indictment and the Commissioner’s assessment that Symonette was unlikely to continue as an efficient officer under Section 21(1)(c) of the Police Act 2009. Fernander emphasized that he did not accuse Symonette of corruption in the meeting and that he wished him well.
The court examined several legal issues, including whether Symonette met the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review and whether he had neglected an alternative remedy. Section 21(2) of the Police Act provides officers aggrieved by a commissioner’s decision the right to appeal to the Governor-General within seven days. Symonette did not pursue this appeal process, which the government argued should bar him from judicial review.
Acting Justice Bazard acknowledged the statutory appeal process but cited longstanding legal principles that judicial review is available in exceptional circumstances, particularly where procedural impropriety is evident. She referenced the Police Disciplinary Regulations, which mandate that officers be informed of the grounds for discharge and allowed an opportunity to respond prior to termination. Symonette’s case, the judge noted, appeared to ignore these safeguards.
The judge concluded that Symonette’s allegations raised an arguable case that his constitutional rights were infringed.
“I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is an arguable case that the Claimant was not afforded due process and the decision itself may have been taken without neither proper regard for the First Defendant’s obligations to the Claimant nor adherence to the principles of natural justice. On the face of it, it appears that the First Defendant paid no
heed to his statutory obligations,” Acting Justice Bazard noted.
She concluded: “Having regard to the evidence before this court, and the foregoing authorities, I am satisfied that this case constitutes exceptional circumstances.”
