A summary of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) - The Bahamas
By Professor Gilbert Morris
Ca Newry - I wish people would read and notice the references on which designations and classifications are based and resist using their uninformed nonsense impressions as having validity.
The Royal Commission 1971 ruled that legalisation could not alter the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. That means the Sovereign State was limited by the prerogative of the Licensees under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.
In jurispudence what force can bind a sovereign in its sovereign power? No contact can bind a sovereign as a sovereign. It’s remedial foolishness to suggest otherwise.
In a recent Supreme Court case, it was found that the sovereign status of the Grand Bahama Port Authority means it could not be wound up under Bahamas company law. Principals of the Port sought to have one of the main principals removed and have the GBPA wound up. The court did not say that would be a breach of contract. It said the GBPA’s special status is governed by the Hawksbill Creek Agreement which grants sovereign power to the Licensees whatever the government’s position may be. To any clear eyed person that is not a mere contract and the court recognised as much!
To any one who know the six Privy Council cases and understand basic law…and have worked on or read the pleadings of Maurice O. Glinton KC…they know the HCA is not a contract and to make such a claim is nonsense.
A trust is law can be created without naming it. It depends on the rights and obligations of the parties: the government is the Settlor, the GBPA are the trustees and the Licensees are the beneficiaries…the Hawksbill Creek Agreement is the trust Deed! That was my explanation in the summary of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement for testimony before a court. As such, these aren’t mere opinions. This is what the law has confirmed. If the terms are too complex then it’s the reader who must get education rather than bellowing neuroflatulence!
