The four West Bay women, Alice Mae Coe, Betty Ebanks, Annie Multon and Ezmie Smith lost not unsurprisingly their case when they challenged the closure of the West Bay Road.

What was surprising to me was why Justice Alex Henderson didn’t throw the case out before it went to trial.

The ruling was the ladies case was out of time. And what was the cost of all this?

To me it was a complete waste of everybody’s time and money.

However, the judge has given an opportunity for the ladies to fight again.

Judge Henderson said he agreed the ladies had a right to bring the case under the constitution and not as a judicial review.

Now the four ladies are considering an appeal on the time bar so that the actual arguments against the road closure may be considered.

Oh, please “NO!”

In a statement released by their Lawyer, Irwin Banks they said, “the agreement made on 15 December was not made available to the public and was not at that point a ‘done deal’ and was subsequently subject to various amendments, including the actual length of road that would be closed should the deal progress to that point. In addition, the agreement was then subject to an independent review and, as a result, the agreement and road closure was by no means certain at the point it was signed in December 2011.”

I have to applaud their tenacity and would not like to get into an argument with any of them singularly, let alone a quartet.

However, to fight the learned judge when he said in his judgment:

“the impugned decision had been taken by the time the NRA Agreement was executed on December 15, 2011. It is clear from the agreed facts that the plaintiffs would have known that the decision had been made within hours of the NRA Agreement being signed. The NRA Agreement contains a commitment by government to close the Affected Road.  Publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is notice to the world of the road closure.  Had the intention to close the road been kept secret until March 13, 2013 the publication in the Gazette would be of considerable significance as it would provide the starting point for the limitation period calculation. Given the widespread publicity about the intended  road  closure  throughout  2011,  the  Gazette  notice  in  this  case amounts to nothing more than compliance with a necessary legal formality (publication is required by section 14(1) of the Roads Law(2005 Revision)). I am satisfied that the decision to close the road and thus the real gravamen of this case occurred at the latest on December 15, 2011.  The decision may have been taken earlier.

“The plaintiffs have not asked for any extension of time under section 26(4) of the Constitution.   I am satisfied that this is for good reason:  any such request would fail. The plaintiffs have always been well informed about the proposed road closure and can be taken to have possessed all the information necessary to advance the present claim a few days after December 15, 2011 at the latest. There is nothing before me which justifies or even explains the 14-month delay before this action was started.”

I have to ask the ladies this:

Isn’t the new bypass constructed by DART superb? Isn’t it a quicker alternative to what was there before? Isn’t it safer now for the children to play at the Public Beach now the disputed section of the West Bay Road is closed?

If they can seriously answer “No” to any of those questions my great respect for all four ladies, whom I know personally will be seriously dented.

I know they do not agree with me that all of this has been a waste of time but can they seriously also say it hasn’t all been a waste of time that THEY shouldn’t have wasted?