By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A FREEMASON has mixed-feelings about his successful landmark civil action in the Supreme Court seeking redress for his suspension and eventual expulsion from the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Eugene Nairn told The Tribune yesterday that his “reaction is mixed, call it more-or-less bitter-sweet” concerning last Wednesday’s ruling handed down by Justice Milton Evans who ruled that masonic jurisprudence does not and “cannot” overreach the laws of the Bahamas.

“It isn’t the fact that I won. It’s more of the fact about what masonry has lost in doing what it did,” he said. “Masonry is a beautiful thing, but it only takes a few bad apples at the top who think they are a power unto themselves, that they can go about doing things without any recourse and that was the principle of the matter.”

“My constitutional rights, based on the constitution of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge PHGL), was violated and I saw fit to seek redress in the courts. They (PHGL) were of the view that whenever a grandmaster makes a decision, nobody could question it or even have any recourse to have any type of redress from it.”

“That was the bottom line and I said ‘no, it’s not right. I will fight it and I will go to the courts because the letter that they sent me, the Grand Master at the time Carl Culmer, he took it upon himself to be the judge, jury and the executioner. So where was I going to go? I couldn’t go to him so the next best thing was for me to go to the courts of the land,” Mr Nairn said.

The Craft of Masonry was passed on through English traditions to the colonists, including those in the Bahamas. An act of parliament in 1975 established the PGHL.

Mr Nairn, a past Master of Columbus Lodge under the PHGL, started this action against PHGL in July 2010, asking the court to determine whether the purported suspension date in a letter in August 2009 and purported expulsion in September 2010 were in accordance with the procedure under Article 25 of the lodge’s constitution which states that “no brother shall be suspended nor expelled, neither before nor without a fair and impartial trial after previous service of a formal charge.”

Mr Nairn asked the court to nullify both if it was of the view that the previous question was answered in the negative.

The PGHL, in court, cited a number of cases to support its argument that the court should not involve itself in the affairs of a private organisation, including the decision of Maugham J in Maclean v The Workers Union 1929 where the headnote states “the court has no jurisdiction to vary or to set aside the decision of a domestic tribunal if in giving its decision the tribunal has acted honestly and in accordance with its own rules and in good faith.”

Justice Evans ruled that masonic jurisprudence does not and “cannot” overreach the laws of The Bahamas.

“Every citizen of the Bahamas whether he be a mason or non-mason, has the right to apply to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas for redress and that right, in no manner whatsoever, be abrogated. The right to fairness and natural justice is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen and the courts have been zealous in preserving and giving effect to this right,” the judge said, adding that principle was clearly inherent in masonry based on Article 25 of its own constitution.

The judge ruled that the court did have the jurisdiction to make a determination on the question raised by the plaintiff and noted that the purported letter of suspension “is inconsistent with all elements of fairness.” Mr Nairn was accused of holding private meetings and attempting to undermine the authority of the Grand Master.

“The letter makes allegations without providing the source and then proceeds to make findings and establish penalties, all without setting a date for a hearing or affording the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The purported letter of expulsion was infected with the same malady,” the court added.

Justice Evans nullified the suspension and expulsion and restored Mr Nairn as a mason of the PGHL until the Grand Lodge holds a trial in accordance with their constitution to determine if the allegations of “un-mason conduct” justifies suspension and/or expulsion.

The judge also ordered that PGHL, the defendants in the civil action, pay the legal fees of Mr Nairn “to be taxed if not agreed.”

The Tribune understands that the ruling is being taken to the Court of Appeal.

When asked about his future in masonry, Mr Nairn said: “I have to pray about that.”

“Because I look at it like this: if you invite me to your house and I disrespect you and talk bad about you, your family, etc, would you come back to my house? It depends right? There’s got to be some reconciliation so that’s where I’m at right now. So I got to pray about that.”

He also said he’s not looking for any compensation for the amount of dues he paid during his tenure. “I’m not even looking for it, but over the past three and a half years or so since this action started I have not paid anything.”

When asked if he was concerned for his safety having gone to such lengths for redress, Mr Nairn dispelled what he called a “misconception” that things “happen” to lodge members for going against the craft.

““That’s a misconception and no, I’m not concerned about my safety,” he smiled.

He said the only harm that could be and was done to him was that they tried to “tarnish my integrity and my character.”

“You see when people mess with your name, that’s all I got. But I didn’t really do this for me ya know? This action was basically taken for future generations of masonry and for future grand masters that they would conduct themselves in a way that’s appropriate and that they would follow their own constitution, and not think that they are powers unto themselves,” he said.

“They’re men just like me and you, ok?” he said.