Review of the AG's Chambers: The Gleaner says good move, but is it?

Today, the Gleaner had a short editorial applauding a proposed review of the operations of the Attorney General's Chambers (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080408/cleisure/cleisure2.html)

The editorial is set out below:




Dorothy Lightbourne has been the revelation of Bruce Golding's Cabinet - but not in a positive way. As an opposition member of the Senate, we used to consider her constructive and and hoped she would bring a thoughtful expansiveness to a ministerial portfolio. By most reports, as attorney general, Ms Lightbourne has been narrowly partisan, looking into ever crevice for political opponents and evidence of disloyalty.

Her attitude is reported to have created deep tension and concern at the AG's chambers, from which a number of lawyers have sought to escape, to a point, as is now reported, Mr Golding has asked for a review of the operations.

If indeed such an investigation is under way, we believe it is incumbent on Mr Golding to inform the public of its scope and full terms of reference. Any such review should also include an assessment of what role Mr Golding's move to prevent Professor Stephen Vasciannie being appointed solicitor general played in creating creating employee disquiet at the AG's chambers.

While I understand and indeed support the sentiment of the editorial, I do think the Gleaner has missed a couple of fundamental points. Firstly, having identified Dorothy Lightbourne as the main culprit behind the turmoil at the AG's Chambers, what would be the point of a review? Secondly, if the review is commissioned by the PM, what would reason is there for assuming that the review would be anything but a whitewash of the AG's conduct? Almost two weeks ago, I alerted a senior editor at the Gleaner about the affidavits of the PM and AG. The Gleaner has failed to either report on the affidavits or use them to shape their editorial position. I find it curious to say the least.

I sent some feedback to Colin Steer, Associate Editor of the Gleaner, which I set out below (edited):


Dear Colin,

I applaud the sentiment behind your editorial today entitled "Good move at AG's Office". I think you have quite correctly characterized Dorothy Lightbourne as partisan and indeed disruptive. Having said that, I am not certain why or how you inferred that the reported review commissioned by the PM has anything to do with the AG's behaviour, or more particularly, the consequences of her behaviour. It would seem to me that the AG has at all times had the imprimatur of the PM. I would refer you to the affidavits of both the PM and the AG in response to the litigation initiated by Daisy Coke et al, as supporting this proposition. The turmoil at the AG's Department is coincides with Dorothy Lightbourne's tenure. It seems to me that a review is hardly necessary to diagnose, much less eliminate the cause of such turmoil.

While I agree with you that the PM should inform the public on the scope and terms of reference of the review, I had hardly see that the PM would include an assessment of his own role in the Vasciannie fiasco. Again, I refer you to the PM's affidavit which clearly justifies his own role in derailing the selection of Prof. Vasciannie and firing the PSC when it failed to accede to his wishes. It seems to me that a review emanating from the PM's office is hardly likely to do more than whitewash the turmoil currently pervading the AG's Chambers, and the roles of the PM and AG in creating it. I am somewhat surprised that the Gleaner has so far opted not to publicize the affidavits of the PM and AG and/or utilize the information therein to shape your editorial position of today. I imagine that you may have your reasons for taking this approach, but frankly, I do not think it serves the public interest.

Best regards,

Hilaire