Earl Huntley : Juffali judgement “extraordinary.”

Earl Huntley : Juffali judgement “extraordinary.”

Earl Huntley, former Saint Lucia Ambassador to the United Nations, has told the Times that a Judge’s ruling in the case involving Saudi billionaire, Doctor Walid Juffali, is extraordinary.

Juffali, currently Saint Lucia’s permanent representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), is the subject of a court case with his ex-wife who is pursuing a claim to his fortune.

The government of Saint Lucia has refused a request from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office to waive the Saudi national’s diplomatic immunity to allow the case to proceed.

“The Judge seems to be saying that Juffali is not an Ambassador since he obtained the diplomatic appointment because he wanted to block his wife.  I call it extraordinary because judgement should be based on facts,” Ambassador Earl Huntley told the Times.

Huntley, who is also a former Caricom Ambassador to Haiti, said that the fact of the matter is that Juffali was appointed by a sovereign country.

He observed that the appointment was accepted by both the British and the IMO.

“To say that he is not an Ambassador is extraordinary because what it means is that a country can appoint an ambassador and a Judge can say that because the motive is suspect, the person is not an Ambassador,” Huntley asserted.

According to the former Ambassador, the ruling has implications for the way ambassadors and diplomats are appointed not only in Saint Lucia but elsewhere.

Huntley dismissed assertions that as Saint Lucia’s IMO representative, Juffali has not attended meetings of the organization.

He disclosed that the Saudi national has attended the IMO general assembly which is held every two years.

“You have to understand how these organizations operate,” he declared.

According to Huntley, the IMO has several committees, councils and sub committees which are usually attended by technical people.

He noted that Saint Lucia’s representatives to the IMO have usually been this country’s High Commissioners, who would not attend technical meetings but the general assembly or special meetings.

Huntley made reference to Doctor Edsel Edmunds who was this country’s Ambassador to Washington and Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

He said:

“Doctor Edmunds was based in Washington and only attended meetings of UN General Assembly once a year, while the technical people attended all the other meetings. Would you therefore say that he was not our representative?”

Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. opps
    February 11, 2016 at 12:23 pm Reply

    Earl you should have been reprimanded for the Grynberg and Helenites affair, now you talking crap. Singing for your supper.

  2. Lababad
    February 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm Reply

    My dear Earl you certainly are trying hard on this one. Unfortunately your premise for condemnation of the judge does not hold water. Judgements and conclusions are made in courts everyday. Logical conclusions, usually referred to as connecting the dots, are made when numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence are put together to form a bigger and much clearer picture. If police find you seated in your car which has crashed into a wall and you’re knocked out the logical conclusion is that you were driving at the time of the crash.

  3. Boujon Guiyave
    February 11, 2016 at 3:01 pm Reply

    This is politically interfering in the affairs of the country by the UK. This is plain and simple!

  4. Observer
    February 11, 2016 at 3:55 pm Reply

    How many debacles must a man be involved in before he realizes that the public does not have much regard for his opinion?

    And for those who keep saying that these actions by the British – first the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and now the High Court – is “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”, etc: Did it ever occur to them that the British may have more information about the circumstances of Juffali’s appointment than they are making public?

  5. Amen
    February 12, 2016 at 11:02 am Reply

    Earl, yours is a perfect example, where persons among us who have been recognized as experts in a particular field, use this same recognition to hoodwink those who are less knowledgeable on the issue under discussion.

    From another perspective, you sound like a cricket umpire who, deliberately makes wrong decisions simply because the law says that the umpire’s decision is final.
    It is in recognition of the need for more fair decisions that the ‘third umpire’ system was introduced.

    The British judge has done a good job as our ‘third umpire’!

  6. Justice
    February 12, 2016 at 10:48 pm Reply

    Earl you held state indformation relating to Grynberg secret. Unprecented as you facilitated Kenny and grynberg. You call the jufalli judgement extraordinary. Well I call your role in Grynberg super extraordinary.
    You of all people should be ashame to even comment here

Leave a Reply

Shares