Sunday Herald redeems itself (sort of)

In its editorial today (April 06, 2008), the Sunday Herald partially redeemed itself by challenging Ambassador Rainford's earlier denial that the PSC approved or rescinded the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson. However, the Herald's editorial failed to take any responsibility for having previously accepted Amb. Rainford's version of events without question. The Sunday Herald actually went beyond a mere disclaimer, and apologized to Amb. Rainford for carrying the story about the cancellation of the acting appointments.

The editorial states that:

There is a widely held view that the current PSC, described by some as Prime Minister Golding’s Select Committee, has lost its independence. And recent developments in the commission and how they were handled have not done much to dispel that view.



The new PSC was conceived and delivered as an appendage of the political directorate. Congenitally, independence was never part of its institutional DNA. To suggest that the new PSC has "lost its independence", presupposes that it was independent ab initio, which is palpably not the case. The lack of independence is implicitly acknowledged in an earlier passage of the editorial which recounts the circumstances in which the new PSC was born.

In its lead story, Commission blunders, the Sunday Herald reports not only on the controversial cancellation of the acting appointments, but on the failure of the new PSC to short-list Hugh Wildman as a candidate for Director of Public Prosecutions. Hugh Wildman has publicly complained that he was not interviewed for the job. In this respect, the Sunday Herald sought answers from Amb. Rainford to the following questions:


• Were all the applicants interviewed? If not, what criteria were used in selecting the short list?

• Did all the applicants satisfy all the requirements in the advertisement? If not, why was there any exception?

• Did the PSC consider applications from Messrs Terrence Williams and Hugh Wildman? If not, was the PSC aware that the above-named submitted pplications? If yes, what factors informed the decision not to invite them for interviews?

• Were any persons with legal training (former members of the judiciary/attorneys) involved in the interviews? If no, what were the considerations for their exclusion?

• Could the PSC specify the nature of the test given to the interviewees prior to the interviews? Did the test involve legal questions? Did the test involve personnel issues or questions related to management?

• What, if any, were the legal issues pertaining to the office of DPP which were involved in the test?


However, according to the Sunday Herald, "Ambassador Rainford declined comment, saying under the Official Secrets Act, he was prohibited to comment on the matter."


This is beyond ridiculous, that in the 21st century, a public authority is invoking an antiquated Official Secrets Act to avoid accountability for its decisions. Has it not occurred to the new PSC that they would be obliged to disclose the reasons for excluding Hugh Wildman if the latter opted to challenge the PSC in a judicial review court? While I hold no brief for Hugh (he was my classmate in Law School), I cannot see any reasonable justification for not short-listing him. Unlike the other candidates, Hugh has had experience as a Director of Public Prosecutions in Grenada. Similarly, I am mystified by the exclusion of Terrence Williams from the short list of interviewees. Terrence is currently the DPP of the British Virgin Islands. The new PSC needs to explain how it could short-list relatively lawyers like Lisa Palmer and Marlene Malahoo-Forte, who have experience leading a prosecution department, but exclude Hugh and Terrence, who do. To be frank, neither Hugh nor Terrence would be my choice for DPP. However, they unquestionably had a legitimate expectation, if not a right, to be fairly considered for the job.

The news article also touched on the cancellation of the acting appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General. According to the Sunday Herald:


Ambassador Rainford said the appointment and later rescinding of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General in February, without the knowledge of the commission was “puzzling and inexplicable”.

Continuing, Rainford said he found it “highly unusual” for the chief personnel officer, Jacqueline Hickson, to act on such a sensitive issue without consulting the commission.

According to the article, "The Sunday Herald tried unsuccessfully to ascertain if it was customary for appointments of this nature to be made without consultation with the chairman, or if the chief personnel officer was empowered to approve the appointments."


Ambassador Rainford is either woefully ignorant of standard civil service practice or is being blatantly disingenuous. There is nothing unusual about the Chief Personnel Officer acting in the name of the PSC with respect to acting appointments, as I have stated in previous posts. Now, I presume that the CPO will simply refer every minute decision to the PSC for its micro-management purview. I have no doubt that the CPO acted in good faith, based on delegated authority. There is hardly a doubt in my mind that PSC 'ketch it fraid' when the AG threw a tantrum over the acting appointments, and that it was the AG's objection to the appointments that determined the final outcome.


I hope that the Sunday Herald continues to pursue the story without allowing its investigation to be framed by any considerations other than the public interest. It would be great if the rest of the Jamaican media would follow suit, but I won't hold my breath, since they seem to prefer an orthodoxy of inertia and indifference.