The Supreme Court has stayed the permanent appointment of two civil servants after a legal challenge to their selection by the Public Service Commission.

Eugene Johnston and K. Amani Lawrence have been given leave to seek a judicial review over the PSC’s recommendation of Shakira Dill-François for the post of Solicitor-General and Nalini Salick for Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

According to legal documents, Ms Lawrence complained that she was improperly passed over for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel post in favour of a non-Bermudian.

Meanwhile, Mr Johnston said he was denied an opportunity to apply for the post of Solicitor-General because of an incorrect description of the prerequisites for the role when it was advertised.

In a recently published judgment, dated January 22, Puisne Judge Andrew Martin wrote that Mr Johnston and Ms Lawrence sought a stay of the permanent appointments of Ms Dill-François and Ms Salick “pending the outcome of their respective applications for judicial review”.

He noted that although there were not “proceedings” to which the application related, there was a six-month probation period before either of the posts can be made permanent and that the ends of those probationary periods were set to fall this month and next.

Mr Justice Martin wrote: “In order to enable their applications to have any meaningful effect, they submit that it would be unjust if their right to be considered for appointment for each of the posts were to be foreclosed by the making of a permanent appointment of Ms Dill-François and Ms Salick before their applications have been heard on their merits.

“By contrast, they submit that neither Ms Dill nor Ms Salick would suffer any prejudice by the grant of a stay pending the determination of their respective applications.

“They are each in post and performing their functions, and any delay in making their appointments permanent will not prejudice them or the Attorney-General’s Chambers in any meaningful way.”

The judge found that there was adequate reason for a judicial review for both hirings, staying the permanent appointments.

“If the applications are successful, it may very well render the grant of relief moot, or at least make a difficult situation even more complicated,” Mr Justice Martin wrote.

“It also seems to me that the only prejudice to Ms Dill-François and Ms Salick is delay, and the understandable anxiety that the uncertainty over their position may give rise to.

“However, I am satisfied that the balance of justice clearly falls on the side of maintaining the position as it stands until the court can adjudicate on the matter.

“The effect of the interim stay relief is akin to an interim injunction restraining the PSC from confirming the respective appointments of Ms Dill-François and Ms Salick pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings.”

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said on Monday evening: “The matter is before the courts and therefore no comment will be issued.

“However, the Government can confirm that both the Solicitor-General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel remain in their respective posts.”

The Government had announced the appointment of Ms Dill-François, the island’s first female Solicitor-General, and Ms Salick last August.

According to the court judgment, Ms Lawrence argued that she had the appropriate qualifications and experience for the post of Chief Parliamentary Counsel, having served in the post in an acting capacity for more than a year.

“Ms Lawrence also makes other complaints about the process of selection and the interview in support of the complaint that her application has been passed over in favour of another candidate who is not a Bermudian,” Mr Justice Martin wrote.

“The case is put on the basis that there was no relevant distinction between her application and that of Ms Salick, in that her own credentials adequately met the requirements of the post.

“She says that she clearly had the ability to do the job as she served as the acting post-holder for 18 months.”

Mr Johnston, meanwhile, said he had not applied for the post of Solicitor-General because the advertisement for the post included a requirement of “five years management at a senior level in a government environment with responsibility for staff”.

However, at the time of the advertisement, the actual prerequisite for the post was “15 years post-qualification experience in all aspects of civil law preferably in a government environment”.

Mr Johnston complained that he would have applied for the post if the correct prerequisite had been posted.

While the PSC accepted that the advertised qualifications were not accurate at the time, the job description was subsequently changed in 2024 to match the description in the advertisement.

Mr Justice Martin wrote: “He says he was deprived of the opportunity to apply for the post when it was advertised because of the PSC’s mistaken use of an unapproved job description, and he says that if the correct job description had been used, he would have had a right, or legitimate expectation, to be considered for the post.

“He also says that the recommendation to appoint Ms Dill-François on the basis of the wrong, unapproved job description was unlawful.”

Mr Justice Martin granted leave for a judicial review of the PSC’s recommendation of Ms Dill-François on the basis that there was an arguable case that Mr Johnston was deprived of an opportunity to apply for the post because of the inaccurate advertisement.

He also gave leave for a judicial review of Ms Salick’s appointment on the basis that there was an arguable case that the PSC failed to give priority to a qualified Bermudian applicant, contrary to the Public Service Commission Regulations.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers