More on departures from the AG's Department

The Daily Observer of June 18, 2008 and the Sunday Herald of June 22 have both highlighted the resignation of Nicole Foster-Pusey within the context of the spate of resignations from the AG's Department since the AG took office.

In the Observer's story entitled 'Stop the Wild Allegations', the AG laughably denies that any of the resignations have anything to do with her. According to the AG:

"I don't know anything about resignations, speak to the Solicitor General. I don't know anything about tension, I wish the media would stop with these wild allegations and go to source,"; and

"Persons who resigned spoke with him (Solicitor General) and gave their reasons for leaving. I'm seeing names I don't even know. I've never met the people,"



Who does the AG think she is kidding? So how does she explain almost a dozen lawyers leaving the AG's Chambers since her arrival? I also gather that significant numbers of support personnel have also left in the wake of Hurricane Dorothy. How can AG credibly claim not to know about the resignations or the tension (to put it mildly) that has existed between her and the staff? How does she explain the resignation of Patrick Foster before his contract ended? How does she explain the timing of his resignation? Patrick resigned right after his recommendation of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General was overruled. Is Hurricane Dorothy pretending that she has never assailed the members of AG Department as supporters/sympathizers of the PNP or that doing so is likely to create 'tension'??? What about her throwing some members of her staff under the bus? She was quite happy to call Stephen Vasciannie's name in the Senate when he was completely unable to defend himself regarding the letter of advice on the Trafigura matter. What about Nicole Foster-Pusey and the Dabdoub litigation? Let's talk about wild allegations for a moment. Was it not the AG herself who early in her term openly accused staff lawyers of being PNP supporters/sympathizers?


I know as a fact that the AG has been in meetings with some of those who have now resigned or left. How can she feign ignorance of not knowing these members of staff? Is she claiming, for example, that she doesn't know Nicole Lambert, who recently left a senior position in the Chambers? Apart from being untruthful, the AG seems to think it a point of pride to not know who her staff lawyers are. What a great pretence from one who publicly arrogated the right to intervene in personnel matters that are usually left to the Solicitor General.


In the same Observer report, the new Solicitor General has apparently become the AG's spinmeister. He declined to say how many persons had resigned since the AG took office, but "expressed a difficulty in understanding why she was being held liable for the spate of resignations". Is Douglas for real?? According to Douglas, "The Attorney General has nothing to do with it, why are they calling her? She is the political head!" The SG also denied that the resignations had anything to do with the behaviour of his new boss. In this regard, this is what the AG's new spinmeister had to say:


"Let me put an end to that; I took office in May and I had a meeting with the attorney general and we have agreed for a formula going forward which means the office would operate in much the same way it did when Dr Ken Rattray was Solicitor General. [This means] the attorney general would be responsible for policy and advising government and the technical legal office would advise her on the technical legal implications of whatever policy the government is pursuing.
That's the formula we had, that's the formula I intend to abide by and that's the formula which the attorney general has agreed to,"


Now let's see, Douglas. If the AG had already been observing the division of labour between her office and that of the SG, why was it necessary for you to meet and agree on a 'formula' for going forward?? Is it not implicit in your own words that the AG was not following this formula before, and hence the need to re-establish it? If the AG had been religiously following this formula throughout her reign, do you, Douglas, believe that you would've been appointed SG? Had this formula been applied, do you believe that the AG would've had the audacity to derail the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie and procure the dismissal of the PSC? If the AG had behaved like all her predecessors, do you seriously believe that a dozen people or more would've left the Chambers in under a year? Do you believe that Patrick Foster would've resigned a mere months before his contract was scheduled to end, if the AG had always behaved in accordance with this formula? Why would Patrick give up a gratuity if things were so hunky-dory in the Chambers? Who do you think was responsible for rescinding the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General? Patrick? Give me a break, Douglas, neither you nor the AG have a monopoly on intelligence, so stop playing us all as fools.

Douglas Leys also claims that none of the resignees has cited difficulties with Hurricane Dorothy as a reason for leaving. Now let's examine this. If anybody had in fact mentioned this as a reason to Douglas, would he be disclosing this to the press? I think not. In any event, as Douglas well knows, people often don't cite the real reasons for leaving a job. Further, does anybody really need to cite Hurricane Dorothy as a reason when it's so obvious??? Let's get real. We are talking about an AG who, unlike her predecessors, has publicly asserted the right and the authority to interfere with personnel decisions, and indeed operational decisions that are usually within the purview of the SG.

In its front page article of Sunday Herald of June 22, 2008 entitled Government Backtracks, there is the incredible story of Nicole Foster-Pusey being compelled to recant an undertaking not to seek costs against Abe Dabdoub, following his election litigation against Daryl Vaz. I can't help but reproduce the relevant portions below:


There are more indications that political interference could have triggered last week’s sudden resignation of director of litigation at the Attorney General’s Department, Nicole Foster-Pusey.

Based on documentary evidence, Foster-Pusey was recently directed to rescind a commitment she gave to attorneys who represented Abe Dabdoub in the dual citizen trial, that the AG’s Department would not pursue legal costs against their client as ordered by Chief Justice Zeila McCalla.

The Sunday Herald obtained documents indicating that Foster-Pusey received instructions from her immediate boss, Solicitor General, Douglas Leys, to rescind the commitment.

In a letter dated May 21, 2008, Foster-Pusey had informed Gayle Nelson & Company, attorneys for Dabdoub, that the AG’s Department would not be “pursuing the award of costs outlined in the judgement”.

However, two weeks later, in a letter to the said law firm, dated June 5, Foster-Pusey said: “I am advised that at the time I made these arrangements, I had no instructions from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.


“The Solicitor General is awaiting instructions from the Attorney General as to how the government would proceed on this issue.” That gave a clear indication that the changed position had emanated from the Attorney General or higher up the political ladder.

On June 12, Gayle Nelson & Company responded, describing Foster-Pusey’s latter correspondence as “astounding”.

“We are therefore entitled, obliged and compelled to rely on any undertaking or assurance given by you in a matter over which you have conduct, and our client intends to so rely, not only on your statements made before the Chief Justice, but also your letter of 21st May,” the law firm stated.

The letter continued: ”We take this opportunity to point out to you that any withdrawal of your position is to be considered a serious breach of ethics, contrary to the cannons of the profession, and which may very well result in a report to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by our client.”

Foster-Pusey replied on June 16, stating that: “ I can offer no further clarification, but anticipate that as indicated in the June 5 letter, instructions will be issued by the Solicitor General in due course.”

The former director of litigation made it clear that she acted within her powers.
“I wish to make it clear that at the time I stated my position on the issue of costs, it was my understanding that in my capacity…I had the full power and authority to do so without the need of instructions from either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General.”

Over the years, Foster-Pusey added, “I have made many such directions in my capacity as the attorney with conduct of a matter, team leader in the Chambers,...since 2002 and various periods thereafter.”


So, in summary, Nicole Foster-Pusey has been thrown under the bus but both the AG and the SG, for doing nothing more than her job. As director of litigation, why on earth should she require express instructions not to pursue costs? The Dabdoub v Vaz case was not one in which the government was direct/named party. The government appeared as a friend of the court, as I understand it. This makes it even more bizarre that the AG/SG would now expose Mrs. Foster-Pusey to a disciplinary proceedings before the General Legal Council? It's unconscionable. Under such circumstances, what could Nicole Foster-Pusey do other than to resign?


The spectre of the Vasciannie/PSC imbroglio continues to haunt the AG's Department, however the AG and the SG want to pretend that all is well. The main problem is that the public, and indeed the legal profession simply doesn't care enough about what is happening in the Chambers to speak out and demand better from those who claim to serve the public interest.

Read More...

Nicole Foster-Pusey resigns from A-G's Department

Not surprisingly, Nicole Foster-Pusey is leaving the AG's Department. RJR reported the news today (June 17, 2008). She joins more than half a dozen lawyers who have resigned from the AG's Chambers since Dorothy Lightbourne's arrival as AG in September 2007. In any self-respecting country, this spate of resignations would be a scandal. But clearly not in Jamaica, where there has been little or no outrage at a government intent on eviscerating the AG's Chambers for no motive other than petty personality/partisan politics.



I do hope that some of the lawyers will publicly disclose their reasons for leaving. In the RJR report, Nicole Foster-Pusey declined to comment on the reasons for her departure or the departure of any of her colleagues. This might be 'politically correct' while she is still in the Chambers. However, I do think the public interest demands that the departing lawyers disclose exactly what is going on in the AG's Chambers, and not simply run away.

There had been some idle chatter some months ago about an inquiry by the Office of the PM/Cabinet Office into the operations of the AG's Department. Not surprisingly, there have been no further developments on this. To be candid, I can't see the point of having an inquiry, given the obvious cause of the turmoil at the AG's Department. I can't see how the new Solicitor General, Douglas Leys can operate with any measure of efficiency, given the exodus of so many lawyers, particularly those at the middle and senior levels.


I was speaking today with one of my Jamaican lawyer friends who now resides in Europe. He related to me how a very senior lawyer in Jamaica was bemoaning the state of affairs at the AG's Department. I reminded him that this lawyer was one of the many in Jamaica who failed to speak out when Stephen Vasciannie was strong-armed out of the SG post. I now recall that I had personally emailed this particularly senior lawyer to raise her voice in protest. I never had so much as an acknowledgement.

Despite the chaos at the AG's Department, the Jamaican Bar Association and the Advocates Association of Jamaica remain mute. I suppose this should hardly be surprising, given their track record so far. I continue to be concerned about the complete lack of engagement by the Jamaica Civil Service Asssociation. Except for a few peeps out of Wayne Jones in the initial stages of the Vasciannie imbroglio, the JCSA has been conspicuously silent. It's times like this that I wonder, why should I care, if others don't?

Read More...

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.

Read More...

The other Jamaican newspapers follow suit

I gather that the Daily Gleaner and the Sunday Herald have followed the Jamaica Observer in distancing itself from James W. Smith's letter regarding the cancellation of the acting appointments of Nicole Pusey-Foster and Lackston Robinson. I cannot believe that every major paper in Jamaica opted to accept the word of Amb. Donald Rainford without question or investigation. The abject cowardice of the media apparently knows no bounds.

In fairness to the Observer, I have heard from one of the editors who has taken the point that the Observer should not have issued a disclaimer in light of the clear evidence available that demonstrates approval for the acting appointments was given and then withdrawn.

Some have suggested that the Amb. Rainford should be taken as saying that the acting appointments were made by the Chief Personnel Officer without the express authorization of the new PSC. However, in the disclaimer by the Observer (which I assume was replicated by the other newspapers), it is clear that Amb. Rainford's position is that no recommendations for the acting appointments were ever made, much less approved or disapproved. This simply does not square with the evidence. When I appeared on Nationwide News Network last week, Emily and Naomi were trying to push the idea of the CPO going on a frolic of her own, as if to imply that she requires express authorization for every personnel decision she makes in the name of the PSC.

Given the posturing of the Attorney General, and her clear intent to micro-manage personnel decisions in the AG's Chambers, I am all the more astonished by the media's handling of this issue. It's a damn disgrace.

Read More...

The Observer drops the ball on the Foster-Pusey/Robinson acting appointments

In today's Observer, March 29, 2008, there is a disclaimer that reads as follows:

THE Observer wishes to advise our readers that in a letter to the editor published in our March 26, 2008 edition the author, James W Smith, stated that:

“The most recent of these developments has been the rescinding of the promotion of a senior staff member by the Public Service Commission only days after the same PSC had approved the recommendation. The public has also learnt of the resignation of the acting solicitor general with over a year on his contract, and the non-renewal of the contract of the deputy solicitor-general, Professor Stephen Vasciannie.

It is of grave concern that the newly appointed PSC could approve a recommendation from the acting solicitor-general for the promotion of a senior staff member and then days later rescind the same appointment.

The PSC owes an explanation as to the “extenuating” circumstances that arose in those days that caused such a reversal. I hope that the new PSC, comprising individuals with the highest levels of integrity, did not bow to political pressure on this issue. Could this be the reason for the acting solicitor-general’s resignation? And what of the future of that staff member who must be highly embarrassed by the course of these events?”

The chairman of the PSC, Donald Rainford, categorically denies this accusation and accordingly advises that no such recommendation was sent to the PSC, no such appointment was made by the PSC and consequently no such appointment was rescinded by the PSC.

Except for the views expressed in the Editorial column, the articles published in our editorial section do not necessarily represent the views of the Jamaica Observer.


The disclaimer can be found at: http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Sk1PLzIwMDgvMDMvMjkjQXIwMDQwMw==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom




In issuing this disclaimer, the Observer appears to have simply took the PSC Chairman at his word, without any journalistic inquiry of the relevant players, namely, the acting Solicitor General and the Chief Personnel Officer. Had the Observer probed more deeply, or at all, it would have discovered two letters written by the CPO. I have posted these letters under the heading "Useful links". You can otherwise access them at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402712/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-approving-acting-appointments-270208

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402711/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-cancelling-appointments-030308


These letters plainly evidence the approval of the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson (on February 27) and the later cancellation of the appointments less than a week later on March 3, 2008.

I am quite ashamed of the Observer for so abjectly accepting the PSC Chairman's denial without any further inquiry. It is all the more egregious, given that the correspondence between the acting Solicitor General and the CPO was openly discussed by Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis on their programme on NNN earlier this week. There really is no excuse for this shoddy and quite spineless journalism.

James W. Smith, the letter writer, has protested to the Observer, and I have supported him in this regard. I reproduce the relevant emails for your information:


James Smith's email of March 29, 2008

----- Original Message ----
From: James W. Smith
To: Vernon Davidson ; Desmond Allen ; Editorial Observer
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:01:16 PM
Subject: Ja Observer: Correction & Disclaimer - PSC & Atty General's Dept


Dear Editor
I note with interest on Page 4 of the Daily Observer of Saturday, March 29, 2008 that you issued a disclaimer and apology with respect to a letter I sent you on issues at the Attorney General's Dept.
The disclaimer raises more questions than answers and I urge you to continue to pursue the matter.
Facts
1) The Chief Personnel Officer or Scty to the Public Services Commission (someone who has acted in this position for many years) wrote a letter under her signature to the acting Solicitor General Patrick Foster approving the recommendation for the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey.
Subsequent, the same person wrote another letter in which she stated that "she was directed" to inform that the recommendation was rescinded.

This letters can be obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Questions
1) On whose authority/instructions would the Scty to the PSC approve such a recommendation? Are we to understand that she acted on her own, without consultation with the chairman or any of the members of the PSC?
Is it standard procedure for the Scty to the PSC to do this without consultation as the chairman of the PSC is suggesting?
2) Is it merely coincidental that the same day the initial letter approving the recommendation of Mrs. Foster-Pusey was sent to the acting SG, that the Attorney General, Dorothy Lightbourne would call Patrick Foster - the acting SG and "cuss" him off for making that recommendation without her consultation or input?
Did the chairman of the PSC not know of this?
3) If as we are being made to believe, that the Scty to the PSC acted on her own, why then would she issue a letter of revocation of an appointment indicating that she was "directed to". Directed to by whom? Since the AG can't or better still shouldn't direct the Scty of the PSC, then who did.
4) Is it of any interest to the public that the acting SG Patrick Foster has resigned? Does anyone care why he has resigned?

I am afraid that a game is being played out here, where the Scty of the PSC is being made out to have acted on her own on this issue and will be used as a scapegoat to cover up the most blatant political interference that this country has ever seen by an Attorney General.
If anybody listened to Nationwide Radio over the last week on this issue, the "wicket is being prepared and rolled" for such an outcome.

These matters are of public interest and must be pursued.
I don't expect this letter to be published but I expect the Observer as an independent newspaper to pursue the truth on this issue.
Of note and interest, my letter was sent to all three newspapers (Gleaner, Observer and Herald) published by all three and the Observer is the only one that has issued a retraction and disclaimer.



Regards,
James


My email of support of March 29, 2008 (addressed to Vernon Davidson and Desmond Allen of the Observer)
Desmond & Vernon,

I must support James Smith on this issue. I take strong exception to your correction/disclaimer. Undoubtedly, there are serious questions to be asked about this issue. Given this, I am astonished that the Observer chose instead to issue a disclaimer, based solely on a denial by Amb. Rainford. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but Nationwide News Network 'published' the correspondence between the Chief Personnel Officer and the acting Solicitor General on this issue. For reference, here's my blog commentary on the issue: http://vasciannie-psc.blogspot.com/2008/03/nnn-this-morning-programme-and-ags.html. Essentially, if one is to follow your disclaimer, there was never any recommendation by the acting SG, and therefore nothing to be approved or rescinded. This cannot fly based on the facts that are already known and in the public. Any responsible newspaper has an obligation to do more than simply accept uncritically the assertions of the PSC chair.

If we cannot rely on the media to probe the questions raised by James Smith, we are in more serious trouble as a nation than I thought.

Best,

Hilaire

Read More...

NNN "This Morning" Programme and the AG's Chambers

Earlier this month, it was reported that the PSC cancelled the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General, after the PSC's Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) had approved it at the request of the acting Solicitor General, Patrick Foster.

Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis, hosts of NNN's "This Morning" programme obtained copies of correspondence between Patrick Foster, Acting Solicitor General and the CPO, and discussed the issue at some length on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, and again on March 27, 2008. I appeared on the programme on March 27 in an attempt to clarify some of the misconceptions of the hosts, and indeed confusion on their part. It turns out that Patrick Foster had made two recomemndations: appoint Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General and Lackston Robinson as acting Director of Litigation in her stead. The hosts appeared to have little appreciation of the roles of the acting Solicitor General and the CPO. At one point they suggested that Patrick's recommendations were perhaps motivated by mischief, and that it might have been better for him to wait for the new SG to be installed. Both sought to read something possibly untoward in the CPO approving the recommendations, given the previous turbulence in the AG's Chambers. Incredibly, the hosts did not ask the most fundamental question: why did the PSC withdraw approval of the acting Solicitor General's recommendation? This deficiency, among others, prompted me to send the hosts a couple of emails, edited versions of are reproduced below.





My email of March 26, 2008
Subject: this morning's segment on the AG's Chambers (March 26, 2008)


Ladies,

Kudos for publicizing the correspondence between the acting Solicitor General and the Chief Personnel Officer of the PSC regarding the aborted acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson.

However, I must tell you that had I not known a thing or two about the civil service and the AG's Chambers, I would've been completely lost by your discussion this morning. To some extent I don't think either of you were clear on a few fundamentals of the civil service. For example:

1. Like all public authorities, the PSC has the power to delegate certain of its functions. In a bureaucracy of the size of Jamaica's, you really wouldn't expect the PSC to personally attend to every personnel decision, particularly acting appointments. The bureacracy would come to a grinding halt if every single personnel decision had to be made directly by the PSC. In this context, the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) would presumably be authorized to take decisions on the PSC's behalf relating to the recommendations of acting appointments of the sort made by Patrick Foster, QC, acting Solicitor General. Invariably, bureacrats like the CPO preface their letter with "I am directed to.." That sentence is there for a good reason, to emphasize that the official in question is not acting on their own initiative, but at the behest of the relevant authority (in the case the PSC). You both seemed to think there was something mysterious or questionable about the CPO's letter approving the recommendations, when there really isn't. Obviously, the PSC has the power to override the CPO, which apparently occurred in this case, when the approval was withdrawn. The other thing to bear in mind, is that the PSC/CPO is almost invariably likely to act on the recommendations of permanent heads of government departments (acting or substantive), since those senior officials will be most familiar with the needs of their departments and with the capacity of the personnel that they manage on a daily basis.

2. There is no rational basis for arguing that Patrick Foster should've refrained from making recommendations pending the installation of the SG, or that he was somehow being mischievous in making those recommendations. Again, this betrays an ignorance of the way the civil service works. Patrick, as acting SG, exercises the same powers as if he were the substantive holder of the position. He is not merely a caretaker. As a responsible chief operating officer of the Chambers, he is obliged to promote the efficiency of the Chambers, which includes making recommendations for acting positions where, in his judgment, the need arises. Further, you will note that his recommendation was that the acting posts be approved 'pending further orders'. Clearly, this implies that the tenure of the acting positions could later be terminated or modified on the recommendation of the substantive SG, or anybody else who is appointed to act in his/her stead.

I really think that you should both consult with an expert on civil service practice, someone perhaps like retired Cabinet Secretary Carlton Davies. This, I believe, would enhance your presentation of this issue immensely.

Finally, I think that in all of the discussion this morning, the most critical issue was missed: why did the PSC withdraw its approval of Patrick's recommendations? I know the answer. I hope you do do.


Hilaire



My email of March 27, 2008

Dear Emily & Naomi,

Thanks for having me on this morning.

Patrick Foster's resignation occurred around the same time that his recommendations were ultimately rejected by the new PSC. There is little doubt in my mind that the PSC was politically strong-armed into cancelling the acting appointments.

The Attorney General has personal animosity towards Nicole Foster-Pusey, hence the objection to Patrick's recommendation. The AG has personally taken up Lackston Robinson's cause. This is evidenced by a number of things, including her personal intervention with the Ministry of the Public Service to have Lackston reinstated despite the fact that there was still litigation pending in the matter. She also instructed the AG's Chambers to withdraw from this litigation. As you know, the parties had agreed on asking Justice Jones to clarify his judgment as to whether it included an order of reinstatement or not. While this process was ongoing, the AG ordered her staff to withdraw from the litigation.

As you may know, the case of Lackston Robinson is front and centre of the PM's justification for firing the PSC. Nobody in the media has really explored why. Nobody has asked why the AG has taken such an active interest in Lackston Robinson and his treatment by the PSC. By contrast, the Police Service Commission was similarly hauled over the judicial coals for retiring Det. Insp. Donovan O'Connor in the public interest. The government has not sought to equate an averse judicial review of this Police Service Commission decision with "misbehaviour". Why not?

Further, what seems to have eluded the media is that Justice Jones had harsher words for the Permanent Secretary Carol Palmer that for the PSC. Mrs. Palmer was responsible for sending Lackston Robinson on leave pending his litigation challenging his retirement in the public interest. Mrs. Palmer remains the Permanent Secretary, to the best of my knowledge. If the PSC deserved to be fired, in the eyes of the government, why not the Permanent Secretary? I don't know if you have read Justice Jones judgment. If you haven't, I would suggest that you do.

Despite all the hoopla by the AG and her PM, Justice Jones never ordered Lackston's reinstatement, as I have explained to you before. This is clear from the judgment itself. In any event, the judge would've lacked the jurisdiction to do so, for reasons that I have previously explained.

Btw, Naomi, I heard you apply a corporate analogy to the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General's Chambers that is incorrect. You suggested that the Ministry of Justice is some sort of parent company for the AG's Chambers. This is not so. There is no such 'corporate relationship'. Under the constitution of Jamaica, the AG is a separate and independent functionary. In fact there is no mention of a Minister/Ministry of Justice in the Constitution While the roles of AG and Minister of Justice are frequently combined, they are legally quite disparate. Accordingly, as I have said to you before, the AG's Chambers is not subordinate to the Ministry of Justice. For certain adminstrative purposes only, the PS of the Ministry of Justice does handle certain matters pertaining to the AG's Department. However, this does not make the AG's Chambers legally subordinate to the Ministry. It perhaps would be easier to understand were the posts of AG and Minister of Justice held by separate individuals. You may or may not know that there is no legal requirement for the AG to be a cabinet minister or indeed a parliamentarian.

I honestly think that your attention with respect to this issue should be far more sharply focused on the issue of political interference, particularly by the AG. The pattern has clearly been demonstrated with the derailment of Stephen Vasciannie's selection as SG, and the subsequent firing of the PSC. Do you honestly believe that the new PSC can do anything other than toe the JLP line? That is why it acted with dispatch to reverse the CPO, once it realized that the AG objected to Nicole Foster-Pusey's acting appointment.

There is hardly a doubt about AG's agenda to eliminate so-called PNP lawyers and replace them with loyalist-lawyers. You mark my words. I am prepared to bet that Lackston Robinson will be installed as a Deputy Solicitor General before mid-year. Further, I prepared to bet that within two years or less, the entire civil service will be dominated by JLP loyalists. Check out what's been going on in the Ministry of National Security. Check out which Minister's daughter has recently gotten a plum job despite her complete lack of qualifications for it. I say no more.

Best regards,

Hilaire

Read More...

More turbulence in the AG's Chambers

The Attorney General has reportedly blocked the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General. Mrs. Foster-Pusey, the Director of Litigation at the AG's Chambers was recommended for the appointment by the acting Solicitor General, Patrick Foster, QC. According to a news report, Mr. Foster's recommendation was initially approved by the new PSC. The appointment should've have taken effect on March 10, 2008. The PSC subsequently withdrew its approval, apparently after the Attorney General objected to the appointment.



Based on previous news reports, Nicole Foster-Pusey has not enjoyed a cordial relationship with the Attorney General. The AG has reportedly attempted on more than one occasion to interfere directly with the discharge of Mrs. Foster-Pusey's professional functions. One reported example is the AG's insistence on dictating the submissions to be made by Mrs. Foster-Pusey in an electoral case. Apparently, Mrs. Foster-Pusey is not seen as 'loyal' to the Attorney General. I would not be surprised if Patrick Foster's resignation was partly influenced by the AG's obstruction of Mrs. Foster-Pusey's appointment.

Not surprisingly, the new PSC appears to be deferential to the wishes of the AG. After all, I am sure Amb. Rainford, et al hardly wish to suffer the same fate as Daisy Coke, et al, who dared to stand up for principle.

The integrity and reputation of the AG's Chambers continues to be assailed by the current Attorney General. It still blows my mind how blatantly partisan the AG has conducted herself, largely unchallenged by public opinion. I expect that any time soon, Douglas Leys will be appointed the new Solicitor General. How he will contend with a partisan AG remains to be seen. With respect to Douglas, I am still mystified that he would insert himself in that mess. Perhaps he has correctly gauged the temperature of political and public opinion, and calculates that only a minority of persons will perceive him as a political hack. So it is.

Read More...