BAHAMAS-Opposition party officials banned from making public statements about each other.

NASSAU, Bahamas, CMC – A High Court judge has ordered the hierarchy of the main opposition Free National Movement (FNM) from making public statements about each other until she gives her ruling in a lawsuit involving the party’s vice-chairman.

The matter has been adjourned to April 14 this year.

“All parties shall refrain from any personal attacks on each other and any other member of the Free National Movement (FNM) in the press, on any social media platform, or otherwise pending the determination of this Action or further Order of the Court,” Justice Deborah Fraser said in the order.

It said the parties should comply with the constitution of the FNM while attending any meetings or functions of the FNM.

“Save for the making or publication of any factual statements to disclose the Orders of the Court from time to time, without the addition of any personal commentary or opinion thereon or about it, the parties shall refrain from discussing these proceedings in the press, on any social media platform, or otherwise publicly pending further or final Order of the Court,” the judge said in the order.

FNM vice-chairman Richard Johnson seeks US$500,000 in damages after executives unanimously barred him from council meetings. In his lawsuit, he argues that neither the party’s leader Michael Pintard nor its chairman, Dr. Duane Sands had the authority to suspend his membership rights and reassign his vice-chair duties.

Johnson is seeking US$250,000 for “loss and unlawful interference” of his membership and US$250,000 for “mental distress concerning the matter,” and interest on the damages.

The order by the judge came after Pintard and Dr. Sands applied to lift the injunction she set on March 8, which prevented them from barring Johnson from council meetings.

The judge had ordered that he be allowed to attend meetings and carry out his duties pending the determination of Johnson’s lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, Johnson said that no charge had been laid against him “before the purported general suspension was imposed, “nor was he “afforded any opportunity to be heard and to respond to any allegations against him which gave rise to the purported general suspension.

“In the alternative, the purported general suspension of the plaintiff was imposed by the second defendant without any executive committee meeting having been called to consider and authorize the issuance of the charge – together with the particulars of the allegation upon which the order is based.

“In any event, (Dr. Sands) had no authority to relieve the plaintiff of ‘any duties previously assigned to [him] as vice chairman’ nor to deprive the plaintiff of his ‘responsibility for any of the constituency associations’ as such duties of the plaintiff were assigned to him by the executive committee and, therefore, could only have been revoked by the executive committee.”