This is why lawyers left, Senator Tavares-Finson

I have been remiss in not issuing this follow-up post for the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson. Senator Tavares-Finson would have us believe that the Attorney General is a paragon of virtue who has been unfairly blamed for the exodus from her Chambers. A good friend and supporter of the blog has suggested a few reasons for the exodus. Senator Tavares-Finson might wish to consider them when he is through flying over the AG's nest.


Here goes:


1. The AG directed then Acting SG Patrick Foster to take over a case from Nicole 3Foster Pusey when the latter had argued a point contrary to the JLP's position regarding the election in Eastern Hanover. The point that she argued was accepted by the court as good law. Why would the AG seek to intervene in a case of such a sensitive nature, but more in the "party political" meaning of sensitivity?



2.The AG directed the Executive Committee to cease and desist from making recommendations for appointments and promotions in the Chambers. She later reiterated this view at a general meeting of attorneys where she indicated that she was to be involved in any such decisions. Why would the AG, as a politician, seek to be involved in the staffing of the public service in this way? This was a concern, though she never actually made any recommendations in that area.



3. The AG commanded the Department to take no steps in seeking clarification of Jones J's order in the Lackston Robinson case, despite their being good grounds for seeking this clarification. In the context of at least one other case, Jones J's order was not the model of clarity. Bear in mind that, at the time, Mr. Robinson had two appeals pending against Government in that area. Was it appropriate for him to resume duties in the Department that had conduct of the respondent's case?



4. The AG sought to publicly vilify Prof. Vasciannie in the Senate regarding the Trafigura Affair, for the sin of advising the government on what needed to be done to facilitate an investigation (and for also pointing out the implications of not facilitating the investigation). She certainly broke tradition when she tackled the matter the way she did that day. This may be seen in the context of her opposition to his appointment as SG, and her ceasing to seek his advice thereafter on any matter.



5. The AG ranted at the Acting SG when he recommended that Nicole Foster Pusey act as Deputy SG, while he was acting as SG. When a new SG was appointed the Acting SG would revert to his post as Deputy SG, and Nicole would revert to her post as Director. One does not need to be a particle physicist to see the connection between that and the almost immediate withdrawal, without any reason being given, of the approval previously given to that recommendation, certainly by the Chief Personnel Officer and arguably on behalf of the Public Service Commission, a practice previously sanctioned with respect to acting appointments.



6. the AG insisted that the FINSAC files be retrieved from Mike Hylton (where they were at FINSAC's request) and be dealt with by the Chambers. It became obvious immediately that the Chambers, with its current workload and its depleted staff, could not take those files "cold" and argue the upcoming appeal in the Paul Chen Young case at the designated time, so the matter had to be farmed out to another private lawyer whose first action was, of course, to seek a postponement of the appeal so that he could prepare.



7. The direct, and angry intervention of the AG when Nicole Foster Pusey agreed not to pursue costs against Abe Dabdoub after his victory in the courts over Daryl Vaz. It may be noted that Dabdoub lost on the point involving the Returning Officer and the Chambers. Bear in mind that Dabdoub had actually withdrawn his original Petition and replaced it with one in which he did not actively pursue the case against the Returning Officer and the Attorney General. A question of interest would be: should costs be paid by him in that context?



For the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson, and others of like mind, it was instances such as these that led some members to reason and ask themselves why should they have to put up with situations like that, particularly when they were being paid quite inadequately for the hard work and level of skill they brought to bear on the work that they were doing.


The AG has not always been an ogre in her dealings with the Chambers. In fact some members of staff have noted that she has been consistently pleasant in her dealings with them. It makes one wonder why she chose to be so unpleasant in her dealings with others and with certain issues. Was that in keeping with her nature, or was she "only obeying orders"?