The intellectual dishonesty of some Jamaican commentators

One of the startling features of this controversy over the PSC/Vasciannie issue is the rank intellectual dishonesty of some of our commentators. Many of them have pointedly dismissed or ignored the facts to suit their particular agenda. I will be publishing a few examples of this over a period. I will start with an email that I sent to Mutty Perkins on November 23, 2007.






Dear Mutty,

For many years I had held you in high esteem as one of the few Jamaican journalists prepared to think critically and to speak truth to power. Sadly, this esteem is being undermined by your treatment of the Solicitor General/PSC issue, and indeed what I am seeing as your descent into rank partisanship in the treatment of important public issues.

Background

Two weeks ago, I appeared on your programme to discuss the government's opposition to Stephen Vasciannie's selection by the PSC as Solicitor General. I gave you detailed information on the nature of the position of Solicitor General and the constitutional and legal arrangements that underpin it. My position was not one of promoting Stephen Vasciannie, per se, but the rule of law. You took no issue with any of the facts or legal positions that I advanced, particularly, my position that the government was obliged to accede to the recommendation of the PSC, regardless of its personal or political discomfort with Stephen Vasciannie. I expressly addressed a reservation that you had previously expressed about his so-called lack of litigation experience, pointing out that the role and function of the Solicitor General did not require the holder of this position to be a specialist litigator. In this regard, I pointed out to you that the work of the Attorney General's Department is divided into five areas, of which litigation is one (the others are commercial, constitutional, international, and general advice). I explained that the role of the SG combines both legal and administrative functions, and is not principally or only about the conduct of litigation.

On the following day, David Wong Ken of JFJ appeared on your programme to take issue with what I said the previous day. Following an aborted attempt to join the conversation, I emailed you an offer to appear on the programme with David at any other time, to debate the matter with him. In particular, I wished to controvert his bald assertions that (a) there was bias (or the possibility) on the part of the PSC in selecting Prof. Vasciannie over Douglas Leys; (b) that Prof. Vasciannie lacked the qualifications to be Solicitor General because of his so-called lack of litigation experience and his (c) Prof. Vasciannie had engaged in consistent criticism of Bruce Golding. For your information, I attach a letter that I sent to Carolyn Gomes of JFJ, which details my response to David's articulated position on your programme. During your interview with David Wong Ken, you made no references to the information or positions that I had advanced, opting to accept Mr. Wong Ken's views without question.

You did not respond to my offer to debate the issue with David Wong Ken on your programme. This seems to signal that you have already made up your mind about this issue, and that you are otherwise disinclined to entertain any views that contradict your personal opinion.

Is the law a shackle for some but for others?

For close to a decade, you have rightly criticized PJ Patterson for his statement that the law is not a shackle. This was in the context of the then PM's failure to follow legal procedure in declaring a public holiday in the wake of Jamaica qualifying for the 1998 World Cup finals.

However, it appears that you now have no difficulty with privileging "practicality" over the rule of law. Today, in an interview with a caller, you clearly took the position that it was impractical for the PSC to force its selection of Prof. Vasciannie on an unwilling political directorate. You and the caller considered that Prof. Vasciannie's "dead-cat" reference forms a defensible basis for the PM to repudiate the recommendation of the PSC, and indeed to remove the PSC, if necessary. Neither of you saw any merit in upholding the rule of law, despite the "impracticality" of personal animus.

Misrepresentation of "dead cat" reference

One of things that disappoints me is your complete misrepresentation of Prof. Vasciannie's dead cat reference, which appeared not only in a tv interview, but in the Daily Gleaner of Sept 30, 2002. The dead cat reference was not a description of Golding per se, but merely a metaphorical description of the effect of Golding's return to the JLP on the PNP, within the context of impending general elections. Prof. Vasciannie was clearly critical of Golding's return to the JLP, but certainly cannot be said to have likened Bruce Golding per se to a dead cat. You have completely failed to bring this analysis to the table, or indeed to provide your own nuanced analysis of the article in question. In any event, there is no clear evidence that the government's opposition to Prof. Vasciannie is rooted in this, or any other criticism of Bruce Golding. It is disturbing to me, that I have seen no evidence of any independent investigation on your part to get the relevant facts, instead of relying solely on what I consider your personal prejudice.

Politicizing the constitutional autonomy of Services Commissions

I am even more disappointed by your view that primacy should be given to the PM's supposed discomfort with Vasciannie, as opposed to the clear constitutional imperative to honour recommendations of the PSC. The law, Mutty, is indeed a shackle. Why then, is the law not a shackle for Prime Minister Golding in this respect? On what rational basis do you excoriate former PM Patterson for his violation of law (justified primarily on practical grounds), but absolve PM Golding from compliance with the constitution with respect to the appointment of a Solicitor General? Whether you or like or not, the law plainly reposes the authority for selecting a Solicitor General in the PSC, and no other. Nothing in the law accords the PM any power to dispute or overrule the PSC if he is unhappy with their recommendation. While you or anybody else may take issue with the selection of Prof. Vasciannie for whatever reason, that does not derogate from the constitutional authority of the PSC to make this selection. In my interview with you on Nov. 05, I made references to the implications of the government opposing the PSC's selection. I do not recall any disagreement from you on the implications that I identified. Yet, curiously, in an interview with my mother earlier this week, you sought to distinguish the government's opposition to the PSC, with opposition by the police to any Commissioner selected by the Police Services Commission who does not come from the ranks of the police.

It seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring the constitutional role assigned to services commissions. The point of these commissions is to insulate appointments to public service positions from direct influence by the political directorate. While you might take issue with the composition of these commissions, it does not take away from this basic premise. Today, you argued that the current PSC was selected by previous government, and that perhaps the selection of the Prof. Vasciannie reflects the part of the nightmare for the government promised by the current Leader of the Opposition. As I understand your argument, the current PSC is itself politically aligned to the PNP and is seeking to undermine the JLP.

Appointment of PSC members

Mutty, first of all, the members of the PSC, as with all services commissions, are appointed by the Governor General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. To the best of my research, the current PSC was appointed in 2006 on the advice of then PM Simpson-Miller, after consultation with then Opposition Leader Bruce Golding. I do not recall any public expression of opposition by Mr. Golding to the appointments of the PSC members. If you have any contrary information, this would be useful for the public. On the assumption that there was no objection by Mr. Golding, is it not fair to infer that the appointments were made on a bipartisan rather than partisan basis? If this is so, on what rational basis do you then maintain that the current PSC's recommendation of Prof. Vasciannie is politically motivated, as you imply? In any event, as a journalist, is it not your job to obtain the resumes of all three candidates and make your own assessment of whether a PSC, regardless of its political complexion, could reasonably have selected Prof. Vasciannie over the other candidates? I know as fact that Prof. Vasciannie's resume was sent to you, but I am yet to hear any reference to it on your programme.

Intellectual dishonesty

Frankly, I think that you have been intellectually dishonest in your handling of this issue, something I find profoundly disturbing in a journalist of your reputation and intellectual capacity. As a journalist, I expect that you will have your opinions. However, the business of journalism is not merely about promoting your opinions, but in ensuring that all the facts and all contending opinions have a voice. Sadly, it seems that your agenda is more about the former than the latter. As an aside, I note that in your earlier conversation with my mother, you bordered on attacking her for simply seeking to raise the issue of transparency, principle, and the rule of law with respect to the selection of the SG by the PSC and the appointment of Joan Gordon-Webley as executive director of the NSWMA. I was appalled that you were disinclined to fully consider the law governing her appointment, preferring instead, to take my mother to task for purportedly not making the same observations with respect to previous PNP appointments. My mother has paid a heavy price for standing up for principle and justice in Jamaica, regardless of the political personalities involved. Her reputation for principled positions on public issues is well-known. For you to diminish my mother's critique of current public sector appointments, by reference to some supposed failure to raise this with respect to someone like Vin Lawrence is, frankly, below you Mutty. What is worse, is your complete failure to put my mother's record on the table in response to her later detractors on your programme, who unfairly accused her of 'tearing down the JLP'. It seems that like many other Jamaican journalists and commentators, you have allowed prejudice to displace reason and fairness in your treatment of crucial public issues.

The law shackles all governments

With respect to the PSC/SG issue, I hope that you might one day consider that the law is shackle, not just for one government, but for all governments. The PNP under PJ and Portia was not above law, much as they might have behaved to the contrary. I hope that one day, you might see that the same applies to the JLP under Bruce Golding.

Best regards,


Hilaire