What is the difference between the law and justice? Not being a trained legal practitioner I know I am treading on dangerous ground addressing this subject and risk enduring a fusillade of withering gunfire from members of the Bar. Be that as it may, I believe there are broadly held beliefs, bordering on universal, that transcend the sole technical purview of the legal eagle, issues that affect everyday people and the underpinnings of our modern society.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “Justice” as, 1. “The principle of moral rightness; equity; fairness.” and 2. “Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.” and 3. “The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honour, standards or law” 4. “Conformity to truth, fact or sound reason.” From this definition we see that the concept of justice is connected to the law but it’s not the same thing as the law, in fact, its relationship to the law is one of cause and effect, or mother and child: i.e. justice being the cause or mother and the law being the effect or child. In mathematical jargon justice is the set and the law is a subset.

Unfortunately, sometimes the child can stray from the mother’s bosom (usually with disastrous results): In these cases, the child can stray either pro-actively or it can stray passively.

In the pro-active sense, sometimes laws have specifically prescribed or proscribed things or practices that clearly resulted in travesties of justice. The whole system of Apartheid springs immediately to mind, as does the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow laws in the US south. Here we had clear situations where the law was unjust and to resist said laws, to break said laws, was: “Moral rightness in action.” So when Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were imprisoned they were on the side of justice even though the law persecuted them for it.

Also laws may decouple from justice passively. We need look no further than our own Bermudian history. Segregation against blacks and Jews in local hotels and restaurants was not enforced by law, but there were no laws prohibiting such injustices either.

Therefore hoteliers were free to decide for themselves whether they would discriminate on the basis of race or not. So the fact that they broke no laws certainly did not mean they were carrying out their business within “the principles of moral rightness”. Any right thinking person would acknowledge that the discrimination carried out by hotels and restaurants during that time did not, “Conform to moral rightness in action,” neither was it equitable or fair. It simply was unjust, irrespective of what the laws of the day said.

Thus justice, while connected to law, is not the same as the law. In fact, justice is more important, more basic and fundamental than the law. In a just society, justice is the rock upon which laws are constructed.

As legislators we in the House of Assembly and in the Senate are responsible for passing laws. It is a grave responsibility. Moreover, Cabinet Ministers, who under our system are the Government, have an even heavier responsibility because they not only promulgate our laws but they control the machinery that puts those laws into action and have the power to tax the people to pay for that machinery.

Due to the heavier responsibility that leadership demands, Cabinet Ministers should always be mindful that their words and actions must not only always be within the parameters of the law, but always be within the principles of the foundation upon which the law is built.

Their words and actions must always be within the parameters of the principles of justice. As leaders of this country they have a duty to carry out the third definition of the Oxford Dictionary: “The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honour, standards or law.”

Therefore it is clearly unacceptable for a cabinet minister to say he is exonerated from a certain action merely because he broke no laws; particularly if he, through those same actions, failed to meet the other tests, tests such as, “Fair treatment” or, “Due reward in accordance with honour.”

Surely the alleged activities outlined in recent revelations, if true, broke the principle of, “Due reward in accordance with honour”. If the rewards reaped by these Cabinet Ministers were honourable, then why has the Cabinet moved mountains in order to cover up the story and thereby hide the facts from their ultimate judges and jurors, the Bermudian people?

And what about the fourth definition of justice,”Conformity to truth, fact or sound reason.” How can the Bermudian people have confidence that justice is being done without knowing what the facts are?

That is why the best course of action is a Royal Commission whose mission would be to independently, without fear or favour, get to the facts in this matter, and the facts must include how the original investigation was handled.

I believe that the overwhelming proportion of Bermudians are honourable people, believe in fairness and equity and share a common sense of morality. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Bermudians are deeply offended by these revelations if proven true. By hiding behind the shield of, “No laws were broken,” the Cabinet Ministers in question place themselves in the same boat as Bermudian segregationists, the very people they love to loathe.

This is a boat no right thinking Bermudian wants to find him/herself in.