Supreme Court blocks clerk's dismissal of senior lawyer at Gordon House

The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked Clerk to the Houses of Parliament (HoP) Colleen Lowe from dismissing a senior legislative counsel whose employment was due to end on December 31.

The court has also permitted Tiffany Stewart to pursue a judicial review of the notice in a bid to have it dismissed as unfair and a breach of natural justice. Judicial reviews allow courts to assess, among other things, whether public authorities acted fairly.

Justice Dale Palmer granted the 28-day restraining order on Wednesday afternoon. He has barred the clerk, or her agents, from terminating Stewart's employment, implementing the notice of termination, removing her from the Houses of Parliament’s payroll, or appointing anyone to the position of senior legislative counsel.

King’s Counsel Douglas Leys, who represents Stewart, said the court has set March 3 for the first hearing of the judicial review application. That application must be filed within 28 days of Wednesday's order, failing which the injunction could be lifted.

The senior legislative counsel was appointed on March 31 and placed on a six-month probationary period that was due to end in September. But the clerk granted monthly extensions, with the final cut-off set for December 31.

Headlines Delivered to Your Inbox

Sign up for The Gleaner’s morning and evening newsletters.

Leys said the clerk characterised the dismissal as administrative and that probationary period had ended and that HoP no longer required Stewart's services.

“She challenges on the basis that it (clerk's notice) purported to dismiss her based on administrative reasons,” said Leys on one of the factors for the court action. “What we intend to argue, and I think found favour with the judge, is that she was apparently dismissed for poor performance.”

He told The Gleaner on Wednesday evening that there is a dispute over a performance improvement plan and related assessments and the termination breached principles of natural justice.

“The dismissal letter was procedurally flawed,” said Leys on the second factor. He said the clerk had issued a memorandum in November stating that the officer would either be confirmed or terminated by the end of December.

“Then on the 19th of December, well before December 31, she purported to issue the termination letter. So, we contend that she had actually made up her mind before the actual date for confirmation or termination arose.:

Leys said the clerk's legal team made "very spirited arguments opposing the application".

Lowe was represented in court by Deputy Solicitor General Lisa White of the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Attorney Sheron Henry also appeared with Leys.

The disputed performance review

In filings, Stewart argued that urgent court intervention was necessary because her December 31 termination fell during the Supreme Court’s Christmas vacation. She said this would have rendered any later challenge meaningless and caused "irreparable harm to my professional reputation and career".

Exhibits contained in Stewart's application unveil a bruising series of exchanges with the clerk, who gave Stewart a below average performance appraisal for the probationary period of March 31 to September 30.

In the Performance Evaluation Report dated October 2, the clerk expressed serious concerns regarding Stewart’s professional conduct and output. She pointed to alleged lack of productivity, poor time management, a failure to adhere to administrative protocols and proposed a performance improvement management plan

"The cumulative impact of missed deadlines, lack of proactive communication, severe punctuality issues, repeated instances of misinterpretation of instructions, failure to provide strategic leadership, and inadequate follow-through on key responsibilities (including procurement training) has resulted in significant operational inefficiencies, reputational risks, and breaches of protocol," Lowe said in her general comments.

However, Stewart rejected the criticisms and refused to sign the evaluation report. She argued that the negative assessment was not a fair reflection of her work and requested a meeting with the speaker and Senate president and a union representative to resolve the issue.

"The continuous threat of employment termination, the monthly extension of my probationary period, the gross adverse performance evaluation, the delay in my appointment to the post of Senior Legislative Counsel and my exclusion from critical administrative, policy and human resource meetings thereby exposing the Parliament to diverse legal risk," she said in a response to the notice of termination.

Stewart also said her aim in providing legal opinions to the HoP "is always to provide impartial legal opinions that are not skewed to achieve a particular managerial or administrative outcome".

Lowe responded on October 13, dismissing Stewart's assertions. "The evidence presented in the PER regarding your chronic lateness, pervasive missed deadlines, poor communication, and lapses in professional judgment remains valid and necessitates immediate and significant correction". Stewart's probation was also extended.

In a November 28 memo advising of the probation extension to December 31, the clerk said it was being granted to ensure "full compliance with established industrial relations best practices, and to provide a reasonable, structured opportunity for you to demonstrate sustained and measurable improvement in the required areas of performance".

However, on December 19, the clerk advised Stewart that her temporary employment would be terminated on December 31. Lowe cited the 1961 Public Service Regulations, which she stated, among other things, allow authorised officers to dismiss temporary workers without giving any reason.

"For the avoidance of doubt, this termination is administrative in nature, arising solely from the cessation of your temporary employment and does not constitute disciplinary action," the clerk said

In her court application, Stewart alleged that Lowe acted "unlawfully" by invoking administrative powers to terminate her when "the decision to terminate was substantively based on allegations of poor performance and/or misconduct". Stewart said using poor performance as the basis for dismissal would trigger an enquiry.

She also claimed that the decision was unreasonable and that Lowe breached her constitutional right to a fair hearing.

Lowe has rejected the allegations.

'Civil war' among staff Gordon House

The court action is unfolding amid an intensifying rift between the clerk and sections of the parliamentary staff.

Speaker of the House Juliet Holness has publicly defended Lowe’s tenure as administrative head of the HoP since April 2024, attributing internal friction to resistance to reform.

“She has done a remarkable job and continues to do so area by area by area, cleaning up,” Holness said on Nationwide Radio on December 10, adding that tighter controls had generated “accusations, accusations and spite”.

Holness was responding to an Auditor General’s Department report that flagged multiple governance and procurement issues at Parliament, many of which emerged over the past two years.

Questions about the clerk’s management approach have intensified following The Sunday Gleaner’s publication of internal correspondence showing that staff raised concerns about two multimillion-dollar projects later flagged by auditors for procurement breaches.

Those records include a memo and an email in which the clerk instructed staff to proceed with uploading bid documents for a $24-million members’ lounge renovation, dismissing what she described as hesitation by staff.

In a separate $3.2-million procurement of air-conditioning units, she instructed that payments be processed despite concerns raised about due process.

“As the accountable officer for this organisation, I am responsible for ensuring the smooth functioning of operations, and my instructions are final in this matter,” Lowe wrote, warning that failure to comply would be treated as insubordination.

The audit identified procurement breaches in both projects, including the use of improper procurement methods, lack of budgetary provision, and failures to document justification for emergency actions.

The clerk has declined to comment on the internal correspondence and later cautioned staff about unauthorised disclosures, warning that leaks could attract disciplinary action under staff orders and the Official Secrets Act.

On Monday, the Public Service Commission ordered the immediate reinstatement of the officer involved in the AC payments to their substantive role in the public sector.

The officer, who had been on an acting assignment at the HoP at the time, was interdicted shortly after her tenure their was ended. The interdiction followed a report by the clerk, according to a letter from the Office of the Services Commissions.

“So, unfortunately – very, very unfortunately – the civil war that took place, and perhaps is still taking place in the Houses of Parliament, is really the mess,” said Anthony Williams, the attorney for the officer.