A controversial plan by Bahamas Attorney General Wayne Munroe to reduce the court-ordered compensation for a young man left permanently paralyzed by a police officer’s bullet has ignited a firestorm of public and political criticism, with opponents accusing the government of prioritizing legal technicalities over compassion and calling out its inconsistent treatment of injured private citizens versus powerful politicians.
Thorne Clarke was just 22 years old when he was shot by police near Wilson Tract in February 2016. The bullet severed his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from the chest down for life. In the years that followed, his mother gave up her small daycare business to become his full-time caregiver, and Clarke requires ongoing, expensive medical care, including specialized equipment, home modifications, accessible transportation, and consistent personal support.
After years of legal wrangling, Assistant Registrar Jonathan Deal awarded Clarke $941,893.91 in damages in a September 2023 judgment, more than seven years after the shooting. The breakdown of the award included $425,000 for pain and suffering and loss of quality of life, $135,000 for lost future earning capacity, and $126,546 to cover projected lifetime medical costs. The state has already paid out just $80,000, leaving more than $860,000 outstanding before adding interest and legal fees. Clarke has publicly stated he does not believe the total award will even cover his lifetime care needs.
The legal process has been fraught from the start: Clarke filed his civil claim against the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General in 2018, and default judgment was entered against the state in 2019 after government legal representatives failed to file a formal defense. Police have maintained that Clarke attempted to drive his vehicle at an officer, who opened fire out of fear for his safety, a claim Clarke has consistently denied. The conflicting versions of events were never tested in a civil trial.
Now, seven years after the shooting, Munroe has announced the government intends to appeal the judgment to reduce the total payout unless Clarke agrees to deduct his National Insurance Board (NIB) benefits from the awarded compensation. Munroe argues that failing to offset the damages by benefits that cover the same losses constitutes an error of law. But critics across the political and public spectrum say the government’s position is morally unconscionable and reveals lopsided priorities.
Former Free National Movement Senator Maxine Seymour, a prominent advocate for disabled and elderly people, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the plan. “I find it deeply troubling that the government appears so determined to reduce the compensation awarded to Thorne Clarke, a young Bahamian man left permanently paralysed by a police bullet,” Seymour said. She argued that the government’s legal obligations must be balanced with basic compassion and fairness. “Mr Clarke has lost his mobility for life, and no amount of money can restore what he has lost. The compensation awarded may not even be sufficient to meet his medical and personal care needs over his lifetime.”
Seymour also pushed back against the legal argument about offsetting NIB benefits, warning that the government was setting a dangerous precedent for how it treats support for vulnerable citizens. “Whatever the legal arguments surrounding National Insurance benefits, we must be careful about the precedent we set in treating assistance provided to vulnerable citizens as something to be recovered when their circumstances change. We do not expect someone who received Social Services assistance during difficult times to repay that support simply because they eventually become financially independent. Government assistance should help people move forward, not become a burden they carry into the future.”
Beyond the legal and moral questions around Clarke’s case, Seymour questioned the government’s policy priorities, pointing out that it has not shown the same urgency in recovering millions of dollars in public funds owed to the treasury by well-connected businesses and influential individuals.
Public backlash has been fierce on social media, where hundreds of Bahamian residents have weighed in to criticize Munroe and the government. Many argue that Clarke should be entitled to both the NIB benefits he has paid into over his working life and full compensation for the catastrophic injuries he suffered at the hands of a state officer. One of the most popular comments on the Tribune’s original Facebook post about the case, which has received more than 100 likes, asked pointedly: “Why not deduct it from the officer that shot him?” Another commenter questioned: “Will the Police Force be paying the employers portion?” One commenter went so far as to say directly of the Attorney General: “I think this man has truly lost his mind.”
Many members of the public have also drawn an unflattering comparison between the government’s hardline stance on Clarke’s compensation and the generous settlements it approved for two former high-ranking politicians who sued the state over malicious prosecution. Both former Progressive Liberal Party Cabinet minister Shane Gibson and former senator Frank Smith were acquitted of corruption-related charges, after which they sued the government. The Davis administration reached multi-million dollar settlements with both men: Gibson’s 2022 settlement was publicly reported to be worth $2.5 million, while the amount of Smith’s settlement remains undisclosed.
“Shane Gibson and Frank Smith got their compensation so what’s the problem here? Animal Farm 2.0,” one commenter wrote, echoing a widespread public sentiment that the government treats political elites far better than it treats ordinary injured citizens.
As the appeal process moves forward, the controversy has put a national spotlight on questions of governmental accountability, fairness for people disabled by state action, and the gap between how the state treats powerful politicians versus everyday Bahamians.