Commentary on NNN discussion on AG's Chambers

Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis of Nationwide News Network had a discussion this morning (Jan 08, 2008) on the situation in the Attorney General's Chambers. One of their conclusions was that the AG was entitled to have a say in the management of personnel in the AG's Chambers. Below is my response to them.




Ladies,

I take issue with your analysis this morning on the AG's Chambers for a number of reasons.

1. You both appeared to justify Dorothy's intervention in personnel matters in the AG's Chambers, based on the fact that she is the head of Chambers. You carefully distinguished her role/function as AG from that of Min of Justice, concluding that her intervention was valid if done as AG, but not as Minister. The implication that Dorothy would be guilty of political interference if she acted in her capacity as Minister, but not as AG is completely wrong. You both seemed to ignore the fact that the constitution of Jamaica excludes input from political functionaries in the personnel decisions relating to regular public service officers.

I heard one of you compare the AG with the DPP, in terms of the right to input in personnel decisions. This analysis is completely flawed. Firstly, there is no comparison between the AG and the DPP, save for the fact that they are both creatures of the constitution. The DPP is clearly a non-political functionary, while the AG is clearly a political functionary. The constitution makes it quite clear that political interference (whether by the AG or a cabinet minister) in the selection of public service officers is simply not on. While the DPP will invariably have input in personnel decisions of his department, this does not, and cannot apply to the AG.

The fact that Dorothy has now arrogated to herself the power to approve personnel decisions (as AG) is unprecedented in the 45 years of independence, certainly as far as the AG's Chambers is concerned. Like the PM, Dorothy, whether as AG or Min of Justice, has NO say in the selection of public service personnel in the AG's Chambers or indeed, in the Ministry of Justice. The previous practice of having an executive committee deal with personnel matters as a preliminary to making recommendations to the PSC is, in law, quite correct. Dorothy's claim that this committee had been acting without oversight or accountability is completely false.

2. Naomi, you took issue with Michael Hylton's note to the PS of the Ministry of Justice, which he wrote four days after his resignation took effect. There is nothing untoward in this. Firstly, Michael's note reflected a discussion that he had already had with Dorothy prior to his departure as SG. This was not a conversation that the PS would've been privy to. Further, Dorothy, in a staff meeting with the lawyers in the AG's department had publicly 'trashed' Michael Hylton for having previously documented his position to her (following their conversation). Even if you hold that Mike was "out of order" for responding to the PS, surely, it can't have escaped you that the bigger, and more fundamental issue is the AG's wilful disregard of the constitutional autonomy conferred on the PSC. There is good reason for the AG to be uninvolved in personnel matters, as clearly, any selections approved by her would naturally appear to be partisan (even if that wasn't the intention). This goes against the spirit of the constitution, if not the letter.

3. Naomi, I understand you to be arguing that there is a culture within the AG's Chambers that has ossified over the past 18 years, that is inherently antagonistic to the new AG. This is simply not so, Naomi. As I told you, my father spent most of his career in the AG's Chambers where he served 7 or 8 AGs of differing political stripes. One thing I can tell you is this. Despite the contamination of other government agencies by tribalism over the years, the AG's Chambers has, in my estimation, remained pristine. It is quite unfair for you to assert the existence of such a culture of political resistance without adducing any evidence to support this view. What is more, I can tell you that if you took a poll of the lawyers in the AG's Chambers, you might well find that most of them supported the JLP in the last election, not that that is relevant. As a lawyer of almost 20 years experience, I have never found the AG's Chambers to operate with a partisan agenda, and indeed, all AGs prior to Dorothy, have been content to allow the professionals to get on with the work of the Chambers in a professional and independent manner. Further, if you know anything about the work of the Chambers, there is little or no room to be partisan, even if you were so inclined.