Responses to Ken Chaplin's column of January 08, 2008

I note with great satisfaction that Patrick Foster, the acting Solicitor General has firmly rebutted Ken Chaplin's scurrilous allegations of partisanship on the part of staff lawyers of the Attorney General's Department. See Patrick's letter at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080110t190000-0500_131242_obs_no__mr_chaplin__not_at_the_ag_s_dept.asp)



As Patrick rightly points out, the AG's Chambers "has never provided a fertile ground for political activism to flourish". I can personally attest to Patrick's observations, based on my own experience as a lawyer, and indeed having a father who spent most of his career in the AG's Chambers.


I am glad to see that Chaplin has been challenged by DS Morgan (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131297_obs_what_s_with_you__mr_chaplin_.asp) and Michael D. Pennycooke (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131296_obs_unfair_to_denigrate_past_gov_t.asp


I sent a note to Chaplin on his column which I set out below:


January 10, 2008

Dear Ken,

Re: Your column entitled Fight over control of Public Service

To say the least, I am quite appalled by your latest column appearing in the Daily Observer of January 09, 2008 [editorial note: it was really January 08,2008]. You deliberately ignored the information that I provided to you in my letter of December 29, 2007. Instead, you chose to propagate unfounded, and indeed damaging claims about the partisan nature of the PSC and indeed the Attorney General’s Chambers. I can scarcely believe that a journalist of your experience and seniority would exhibit such contempt for the facts. This is not a situation where you were genuinely ignorant. You were provided with information, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore.

The only reason that I am bothering to write on this occasion is because you have recklessly assailed the reputation of the lawyers of the AG’s Chambers, including my own father, Peter A. Sobers, OD. You might not know this, but he spent 30 years in the service of the Attorney General’s Chambers, rising to the position of Deputy Solicitor General before his retirement at the turn of the century. A significant part of his tenure at the AG’s Chambers was during the 18-year regime of the Peoples National Party. My father, as Deputy Solicitor General, would’ve had some input in the hiring and promotion of professionals in the AG’s Chambers. By implication, your analysis indicts him as either a PNP activist or an accomplice to those who sought to recruit such activists during the PNP regime. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The most superficial research on your part would reveal that my father, like the rest of his colleagues in the AG’s Chambers, have unfailingly comported themselves with the dignity, independence, and professionalism that the job requires. To accuse them all of being PNP activists is sordid to say the least.

I find it utterly nauseating that you would seek to tarnish the reputations of lawyers without adducing the slightest evidence in support of your assertion of partisanship on their part. Frankly, you owe them an apology. Might I add that some of those recruited during the PNP regime have been elevated to the Bench. Miss Justice Mangatal is an example. Are you accusing Justice Mangatal of being a PNP activist too?

With respect to the PSC, you insist on accusing them of being partial to the PNP (with the exception of Alfred Sangster) without offering any evidence. The first time you did it, I thought you were careless. The second time, however, is clearly deliberate. Nowhere in your column have you offered any evaluation of their performance or indeed offered any evidence of public service appointments based entirely on partisan grounds. Is this your idea of quality opinion journalism?

You continue with this myth of a convention of resignations, when I clearly explained to you why such a convention couldn’t exist. You have not taken issue with what I explained to you, so I can only infer that you accept my explanation, but that your agenda does not permit you to do so publicly. That you would suppress information that does not fit in with your agenda is disturbing to say the least.

Your intellectual dishonesty also applies to your treatment of the PM’s relationship with Stephen Vasciannie, where you continue to pretend that the PM’s actions are grounded in some animosity towards Prof. Vasciannie. Speculation, Ken, is not the same thing as fact.

Finally, you assert, “If Golding does not reinstate the non-partisan characteristics of the PSC, the public service will be in dire trouble”. Excuse me, but what sort of characteristic do you think the newly appointed PSC has? Given the circumstances of their appointment, do you seriously believe that they can reasonably be perceived as non-partisan? For argument’s sake, if the selection process for the SG were repeated and it considered Prof. Vasciannie the best candidate, do you believe that this new PSC would appoint him? Another thing that you conveniently omit is that the political parties previously decided on consensus as the formula for appointing members of the PSC. Former Prime Ministers Patterson and Seaga arrived at this agreement in 2005 during the Vale Royal. Perhaps you are unaware that the so-called ‘PNP PSC’ was appointed under this formula.

One day I hope you recover your conscience.


Best regards,

Hilaire (Sobers)