Who knows whether Employment Judge Pearl would twist my statement to him today against me in the most sinister way – for example alleging that I threatened him after all it would sound plausible to accuse a Black man of acting aggressively or otherwise threatening. Anyway, I can no longer be too shocked by anything in Britain because I have already experienced dozens of things that no sane minded person even in Osama Bin laden neighbourhood would believe could happen in Britain. I have experienced dozens of atrocities (in the hands of Judges in Britain), which I find difficult to tell people in Nigeria because nobody would believe me.
Today in particular Employment Judge Pearl once again made me feel ashamed of being a lawyer.
I had predicted what happened today in my letter to the Attorney General on 27 September 2010 which I also copied Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). I thought that crying out about an impending abominable act would forestall it, but I was very wrong. The aspect of my letter to the Attorney General for England & Wales that dealt with what happened today is copied below. Please read to understand the issues:
“Impending Judicial farce in my second claim against Badenoch & Clark (a recruitment agency) and Others: This is a case that gives further credence to a suspicion of something really mysterious happening in the Employment Tribunal system.
B&C’s lawyers, Sheridans, incompetently and or negligently failed to respond within 28 days which elapsed at 23:59hrs on 30 December 2009. Instead of filing its response immediately it realised its failure, Sheridans wrote the Tribunal asking for my claim to be struck out for being an abuse of process. This was a laughable application because B&C had no grounds, to make any such application, even if the application had any merit whatsoever.
Helpfully, Employment Judge Pearl reminded the respondent’s Sheridans, as I had done that it had no basis for making any such application when it had not even responded. B&C then forwarded its response on 12 March 2010, more than 2 months out of time and Employment Judge Pearl rightly in line with the rules, rejected the response and ruled that B&C will not take active proceedings in the proceedings – meaning that I had effectively won my case against B&C.
B&C had 14 days to apply for a review if it did not like the decision and 42 days from 26 March when the decision was sent to the parties, to appeal in the EAT.
The time for appealing to the EAT elapsed on 7 May 2010 at 4.00pm, but B&C had done neither review application nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
On or around 27 May, 2010 during the part-hearing in my first claim against B&C and Others, EJ Wolffenden suggested that a CMD which had been scheduled for my claim against the Second Respondent in this claim was meant for discussing “…the First Respondent’s failure to respond”. This was never stated in the Notice of CMD that I received. In any case, B&C had indicated it was not opposing the decision of the ET and it is impossible to discuss such a matter in a CMD as failure to respond within the time limit could only be addressed by way of a review hearing if the Respondent applies for a review (B&C had not applied for any review). It was further baffling, how or where EJ Wolffenden got what she said from?
I promptly reminded the EJ that B& C had neither applied for review nor filed a Notice of Appeal.
However, on 1 July 2010, B&C applied for a review claiming that it had changed its mind against not challenging the ET’s decision to debar it from taking active part in the proceedings.
My concern here is that the ET is probably scheming to find a way of accepting B&C’s Response even though it would plainly constitute an abuse of process. Besides, even the response of B&C and disclosures it made lately show that it has no valid defence to my claim, in any case ( e.g. the CVs it purports to have forwarded do not meet the very criteria it claim that I did not meet to be forwarded). There are clear indications here that some Employment Judges are determined to ensure that I must never be successful in any claim”
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Employment had no legal or moral basis at all for allowing B&C’s late response today, not just because there is no judicial precedence , but most importantly because it is an unmitigated abuse of process. B&C’s Counsel apparently searched all law libraries in England and Wales and could not find a case where a Defendant or Respondent who was debarred from taking active part in a proceeding or had the alternative, a Default judgment against it because it was out of time, indicated it was not going to challenge the Court’s decision (missed the deadline for applying for review by 2 Months and missed deadline for appealing by more than a Month), but after 2 Months changed its mind, asked the Court to allow it to defend the claim and the Court agreed.
Some experienced may rightly imagine that the Respondent may have had a highly meritorious defence. Interestingly, there is nothing of that sort. In fact, the response of B&C to my claim is purely scandalous if not simply idiotic because it appears obvious that while desperately scouting for CVs that would dwarf mine and present its defence as strong; it foolishly forgot what it had stated in the past in respect of some of the jobs. For example, in the case of Freedom of Information (FOI) Lawyer it claimed in its response to my claim that I was not put forward for that job because I did not possess any experience. It produced an old version of my CV which did not show that I had any FOI experience. When I showed Counsel for B7C some correspondence back in September 2009 which showed that B&C confirmed to me in writing that it was going to put my CV forward for that role, the story, he changed the story to say that I was actually put forward for that role but that its clients did not accept my CV.
In the case of Part Time Employment Lawyer, I had received an email on October 8 2009 from one Paul Gledhill of B&C who stated that the reason he was not putting my CV forward to its client was because there were many high quality applications for the role and that they were only allowed to submit just 3 candidates. He equally indicated that all the candidates submitted were practicing Barristers and Solicitors.
Interestingly, in its response to my claim B&C maintained that it was highly competitive but forgetting what Mr Gledhill had initially represented claimed that it forwarded the two best CVs. Even more interesting is the fact that none of the two CVs showed any evidence of any practicing Barrister or solicitor. In fact one of the candidates actually possessed no legal qualifications at all.
Perhaps, the most incontestable evidence in my favour was the series of emails where the former lawyer of B&C named Ms Rabi who incompetently and or ignorantly, repeatedly wrote me very harsh emails stating that B&C would no longer act for me, falsely accusing me of being rude, and aggressive towards B&C’s staff. This was a prima facie evidence of Victimisation handed to me on the platter of gold as the false accusation only came about after I had brought a claim against B&C and most importantly, there is no single evidence that any staff of B&C that handled any of the jobs I applied for ever complained about me.
Despite my past experiences of judicial farce from Employment Judge Pearl and others I mounted my best advocacy against determination to allow B&C ‘s response by drawing his attention to apparent weakness in B&C’s response and equally highlighting several act of fraudulent conducts and misrepresentation by B&C including the fraudulent application it made on 4 January 2010.
I believed that Employment Judge would not be so conscience ridden to allow B&C’s application, but he proved me very wrong again. I even reminded him that in March 2009, he refused to exercise discretion in a discrimination claim which was only a few minutes out of time, but he feigned ignorance of it. I then reminded him of a sound judgment he passed in the case of Ahmed v Amnesty International which he excitedly recalled, but refused to be as astute in my own case.
I only hope Mr Pearl would seriously think of my last words to him since he apparently wrote them down. I told him what came to my mind “If you have children, please note that one day my children will ask your children about what you are doing to me today” I reminded him that my children are British and would almost certainly grow up one day and ask his children about what he is doing to me.
For my readers, I am not really desperate for your sympathy or didactic sayings and advice. I am only desperate for community leaders, religious leaders and the general public of Britain to hear my story and to rise and stop what is happening to me from happening again to any other person in Britain. I am not going to stop fighting because I have a stake in this country as my children are born here and could suffer the same ugly fate tomorrow if not challenged today. I am desperate to tell my story because I want to ensure that the accurate account of my life in Britain is maintained and that those who are hiding under the global acclaim of the English legal system to fraudulently destroy the life of an innocent man have the opportunity of proving to the world that I am actually a mad man. I am writing my story and will continue doing so as I fight on because if anything happens to me tomorrow, the same mainstream English media that “blacked me out” in my claim against the Bar Council and would not follow my story because I am not a celebrity or for some other unknown reasons, would concoct a false story about me. Further, my experiences so far confirm to me that it may be possible to hang a crime on me in order to jail me or even for a corrupt police man to be used to shoot me and brand me a terrorist caught in the act. I have therefore decided that my only choice while I am still alive is to fight the fight that has befallen me at all cost.
The only possible explanation I can deduce, why every judge in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal seem to have sworn an oat to defeat any claim I may bring is because I had the guts to challenge the Bar Council of England and Wales’s obnoxious policy which makes it impossible for about 70 % of those who pass their bar exams and called to bar each year to be able to practice as barristers. In fact, since the policy came into place in 2003, it has been far more difficult than it was in the 1980s for Blacks and some other minority groups to be able to obtain practicing certificates as barristers. I believed (perhaps, foolishly) that I was in a free and democratic country where you can complain or challenge something you believe to be wrong. I am now paying a heavy price. Perhaps, I should have been wiser not to have challenged them, but I spent over £15,000 pounds to train as a Barrister and I come from the part of the world where it is an abomination to stop a man from legitimately earning a living. I cannot get a befitting legal job in any public sector organisation and or through the recruitment agencies which they often use as conduits for discrimination and if I complain of discrimination the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal judges would fight my claim even more ferociously than those I complain against. I am being put in a situation where I am bound to bring complaints in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunals where Judges are waiting happily to frustrate my complaints at all cost.
My promise is that I will never give up as I know that my children and other people's children would suffer similar fate. I promise to fight on even at the risk of losing my life or at least inconveniencing my family. I have committed no offence and cannot accept to be treated like a subhuman in a country that holds itself out to the world as a beacon of freedom, fairness and equality.
I will keep readers updated with my story as it unfolds.
18 October 2010