In this year's Independence honours, the government has conferred the Order of Jamaica on Mr. R.N.A. Henriques "for contribution to the legal profession". According to David P. Rowe (in the Sunday Herald of August 10, 2008) this award is "richly deserved". Prof. Rowe praises Mr. Henriques for being "a mentor to junior lawyers in our jurisdiction", and that "Senior politicians, oil companies and high net worth individuals have properly trusted their legal business to him". Prof. Rowe also cites Mr. Henriques' "extensive Privy Council experience" as "an attribute which few Jamaican practitioners can overcome".
I am not sure why extensive Privy Council experience is something to 'overcome', but I digress.
What Prof. Rowe does not mention in his panegyric, is that Mr. Henriques appears to be the personal lawyer of the Prime Minister. Mr. Henriques heads the legal team defending the PM and the AG in the litigation initiated by Daisy Coke, et al to challenge their dismissals.
On appearance alone, it is difficult to resist the cynical conclusion that Mr. Henriques is being honoured more for his loyalty than his track record at the Bar. While Mr. Henriques is undoubtedly an able lawyer, I can't see anything in his resume that particularly distinguishes him from the rest of the legal profession. Certainly, Mr. Henriques has largely been a preserver of the status quo; there is nothing that I can attribute to him that has been in any way ground-breaking or which has palpably advanced the legal profession as a whole.
The award of OJ to Mr. Henriques reminds me of the OJs conferred by the PNP government on David Coore, Winston Jones, and Ralph Brown. On the face of it, the OJs were just plums for the boys more for for loyalty than national contribution. I am not saying that Mr. Henriques is a party hack. I am simply saying that I see nothing in his resume to merit the award, other than his connection to the Chief Servant.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Plums for the boys?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While I have read and savoured your letters to the editor with much glee, I am quite happy to discover that you also have a blog.
You know, I too looked at the awards lineup and was so disgusted, I wanted to spit. I am still rolling ideas around in my head about how to word my critique, so I am glad to see that you have begun that process.
After watching the way that Orders of this and that were given out like political candy, I have to wonder whether Jamaicans are aware of how the value of such commendations is changing in this political climate. Henriques is not the only one who's been given a plum. Even people who I otherwise admire from a distance - like Danville Walker and Chief Justice Macaulay - have been sucked up into this new form of patronage. Apparently, simply by virtue of doing one's job, even a job one just began, or helping the PM prove a point, you can get an award. I hope that Walker and Macaulay can maintain their independence, but at some time, I am sure there's going to be request for payback. Ol time people seh anno one time monkey w'aa wife.
I am not surprised that questions about the integrity of the nomination and award system have not been posed publicly, but that need not remain the case. I am definitely going to write about this issue in the coming days.
Walk good.
Long Bench
Dear Long Bench,
Thanks very much for your feedback. Interestingly enough, I just got an email feedback from a lawyer who objected to my criticism of RNA's OJ. Hopefully he won't mind if I post his feedback on the blog for response.
In fairness to Danville W, I do think that he has done significant work in reform the electoral system (given where it was coming from) to merit a national honour. The OJ to the CJ is really just a convention; all CJs get it. Just like all high court judges in the UK are knighted.
But I do take your point that honours are often awarded simply for doing one's job, and opposed to doing something exceptional.
I am honoured that you have taken the time to come on my blog and contribute feedback. Please feel free to do so again.
Best,
Hilaire
As we seek to criticize others, the least commentator long bench can do is to afford the CJ a proper spelling of her name. It is McCalla. Further, the insinuation against the CJ is unfortunate. i did take a look at messr. longbench's blog, which I suggest Hilaire do as well, such arrogance and holier than thou posturing is unfortunate. Non-partisan my foot!
I hear you, but I think the essential point being debated is the national honours and awards are based on merit or other considerations. I don't agree with Long Bench's views with respect to the Chief Justice or Danville Walker, as my response above indicates. I did have a look at the blog, as you suggested, but I haven't really picked up any of the objectionable features that you mentioned.
Hilaire
Post a Comment