What Does Jomo Thomas Know About Legal Reasoning?
The question encapsulated in the title of this article might seem a strange one to ask about someone who ostensibly is a lawyer and who we might therefore conclude has some amount of legal training. However, at the same time, it seems a natural query after reading the pathetic response Mr. Jomo Thomas offered to my cogent article on the Court of Appeal Judgement in the Three Teachers Case as published in the Searchlight newspaper three weeks ago (March 1st edition at page 11). Jomo’s reply was carried in the same newspaper the following week appearing on page 7.
I looked on in amusement at Mr Thomas speculating about my identity and the extent of my legal knowledge, while at the same time exposing his own ineptitude. What does Jomo know about me and my understanding of Constitutional and Administrative Law? Examine this piece of reasoning from Jomo in his reply: “We know that Maria Williams is not a practising attorney in SVG. Therefore we can safely state that Maria Williams is an assumed name.” What a leap of logic! This man shouldn’t accuse anyone of faulty reasoning.
I get the distinct sense that Jomo Thomas feels he alone knows everything. He does not at all speak from a humble posture even though the Bible says he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. It could be that both his acquaintance with legal texts and the Scriptures are limited. The only people who are right about anything and who have a grasp of legal concepts, as far as Jomo Thomas is concerned, are those who agree with him.
He was quick to heap praise on the Justices of Appeal because they returned a verdict that was in line with his own thinking. He went so far in complimenting the judicial panel that it was almost indecent. It could be that he is campaigning for favourable legal outcomes in the future. Jomo sought to flatter the judges despite their issuance of what really is by any objective standard a poor judgement written by one member of the panel and rubber stamped by the other 2 jurists involved. Contrary to Jomo’s suggestions, the judgement was not well-argued at all. I addressed this in detail in my original article on the subject.
I came away from Jomo’s article with the intense feeling that the gentleman is a self-obsessed bigot. He is so consumed with himself and his own thoughts that he couldn’t see reason and logic even if they were right in front of his nose screaming and doing a dance. The way he carried on suggests that he thinks any view at variance with his own must be dead wrong. He is not capable of respectful disagreement. He lacks an open mind. The other regrettable part of this problem is that some garbage ideas which originate in his head might be taken up by an unsuspecting passer-by as nuggets of insight. We must vigorously guard against the possibility of the public being misled or swayed by thoughts from a mental trash can or dump heap.
It is a pity that a character like Jomo with such little tolerance for divergent views could be Speaker of our Honourable House of Assembly. It must be chaos inside the hollowed walls of our Parliament. I can’t even begin to imagine what might be going on in that Chamber. I am now minded to question the quality of the Speaker’s decisions and adjudications.
The arguments I wrote in my original article on the teachers judgement stand. They have not been shaken or affected by anything Jomo Thomas said. They are incontrovertible and shall not be moved. If the judgment is appealed to the Privy Council, my view is that it will be overturned.