Patrick Foster replies to Tom Tavares-Finson

I am belatedly mentioning that Patrick Foster, QC, replied comprehensively to Tom Tavares-Finson's specious claims about the AG's Chambers. Patrick's letter appeared in the Observer of July 13, 2008:

http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080712t220000-0500_137806_obs_so_unfair__senator_tavares_finson_.asp



Patrick asserted that in his "capacity as deputy solicitor-general and acting solicitor-general", he had had "detailed discussions with all the attorneys who have recently resigned from the Chambers and none have indicated to me that their resignations were related to the attorney-general's review of the fee arrangements in the Chambers". Unless Tom Tavares-Finson can demonstrate that Patrick is being untruthful, I do believe he owes an apology (at the very least) to the lawyers of the Chambers.

Patrick indicated that the attorneys left for a variety of reasons, but declined to disclose any of them. I think this is a pity, as I do think that the public does deserve to know in clear and unambiguous terms the reasons for this unprecedented exodus from the AG's Chambers.


Patrick made it clear that none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG's review of the fee-charging practice. Similarly, none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG setting or reviewing policy in this area. He clarified that this practice is authorized by the Staff Orders, a minor detail that Tavares-Finson omitted to mention in his assault on the lawyers of the Chambers. It is curious, but not surprising, that the AG herself is yet to speak on the matter, either to defend her staff or to correct Tom Tavares-Finson's wild allegations.

I am still hoping that former staff lawyers at the AG's Chambers will step forward and disclose precisely what has transpired since Dorothy Lightbourne became AG in September 2007. This is not a private matter, and the public interest demands full disclosure, in my view. I suspect that public servants are loathe to expose malfeasance or abuse of authority occurring in their departments. Presumably, this is in keeping with the culture imposed by the Official Secrets Act. For me, remaining silent is the equivalent of protecting those would abuse the authority that has been entrusted to them by the public.

We will see.

Read More...

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...

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 departures from the AG's Chambers?

Stephen Vasciannie's last day in the AG's Chambers was March 18, 2008. Patrick Foster, as has already been announced, will leave at the end of June 2008. I have now been reliably informed that Nicole Lambert, another senior member of the Chambers is expected to leave in April 2008. At least two or three more resignations are rumoured to be forthcoming.



The AG's partisan campaign of 'shock and awe' is clearly resulting in a 'surge' of resignations and departures, to the detriment of the people of Jamaica. It is no secret that the AG considered that the Chambers had been 'infected' by so-called "PNP" lawyers, and thus, the shock and awe campaign to purge them. Dorothy Lightbourne has diplayed a virulent partisanship that I never suspected was in her. I have known her for many years, and never saw this side to her. Dorothy is fundamentally a weak and insecure lawyer who has no respect for the institutional history of the AG's Chambers, nor for the professionals who staff it. She seems particularly threatened by those who are palpably more competent than she is. So she resorts to tearing them down. She has contrived to have a Public Service Commission that will rubber stamp her whims. Loyalty is her bottom line, not competence. What a tragedy for the the Chambers. What a tragedy for Jamaica.

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...

Stephen Vasciannie & Patrick Foster to leave AG's Department

According to media reports, Deputy Solicitors General Patrick Foster and Stephen Vasciannie will be leaving the Atorney General's Chambers. Patrick Foster's resignation was first announced yesterday. His resignation takes effect on June 26, 2008. Stephen Vasciannie leaves at the end of March 2008 when his contract comes to an end. Not surprisingly, the government did not offer to renew Prof. Vasciannie's contract.



Patrick Foster, has been acting as Solicitor General since last year when the government objected to the PSC's recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie as the new Solicitor General. Patrick, together with Douglas Leys were the other two candidates considered for the position at that time. According to an RJR news report today, Patrick is leaving for 'personal reasons'. I suspect that Patrick has just had enough of the political turbulence wrought by the current Attorney General. I can't say I blame him.

The intent of the government, it appears, is to either purge or destroy the AG's Department, all in the name of politics. Jamaica can ill afford to lose the talent and experience of Stephen and Patrick, worse yet at the same time. I fully expect the Department to haemorrhage more talent before long. With the current PSC being beholden to the government, one can expect that the AG will soon have her wish of having loyalists instead of lawyers occupying her Chambers. As has been reported elsewhere, the Dorothy Lightbourne, in her capacity as Minister of Justice has appointed Sherene Golding, the PM's daughter to be her adviser on legislative reform, among other things. Ms Golding has no legal qualifications or experience, save for an undergraduate degree in law from Georgetown University. This is beyond farcical. Jettison Foster & Vasciannie, but elevate the Prime Minister's daughter.

There is a clear agenda on the part of the government to politicize the civil service. I have just received information that another ministry is being positioned to incorporate political loyalists in its civil service ranks. More anon on this.

Read More...

One application for post of Solicitor General -RJR -Feb.08, 2008

RJR confirms that the only applicant so far for the post of Solicitor General is Douglas Leys. One working day remains for applications to be submitted. RJR also reports that neither Patrick Foster nor Stephen Vasciannie have re-applied for the post.


http://www.radiojamaica.com/content/view/5359/26/

Read More...

Responses to Ken Chaplin's column of January 08, 2008

I note with great satisfaction that Patrick Foster, the acting Solicitor General has firmly rebutted Ken Chaplin's scurrilous allegations of partisanship on the part of staff lawyers of the Attorney General's Department. See Patrick's letter at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080110t190000-0500_131242_obs_no__mr_chaplin__not_at_the_ag_s_dept.asp)



As Patrick rightly points out, the AG's Chambers "has never provided a fertile ground for political activism to flourish". I can personally attest to Patrick's observations, based on my own experience as a lawyer, and indeed having a father who spent most of his career in the AG's Chambers.


I am glad to see that Chaplin has been challenged by DS Morgan (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131297_obs_what_s_with_you__mr_chaplin_.asp) and Michael D. Pennycooke (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131296_obs_unfair_to_denigrate_past_gov_t.asp


I sent a note to Chaplin on his column which I set out below:


January 10, 2008

Dear Ken,

Re: Your column entitled Fight over control of Public Service

To say the least, I am quite appalled by your latest column appearing in the Daily Observer of January 09, 2008 [editorial note: it was really January 08,2008]. You deliberately ignored the information that I provided to you in my letter of December 29, 2007. Instead, you chose to propagate unfounded, and indeed damaging claims about the partisan nature of the PSC and indeed the Attorney General’s Chambers. I can scarcely believe that a journalist of your experience and seniority would exhibit such contempt for the facts. This is not a situation where you were genuinely ignorant. You were provided with information, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore.

The only reason that I am bothering to write on this occasion is because you have recklessly assailed the reputation of the lawyers of the AG’s Chambers, including my own father, Peter A. Sobers, OD. You might not know this, but he spent 30 years in the service of the Attorney General’s Chambers, rising to the position of Deputy Solicitor General before his retirement at the turn of the century. A significant part of his tenure at the AG’s Chambers was during the 18-year regime of the Peoples National Party. My father, as Deputy Solicitor General, would’ve had some input in the hiring and promotion of professionals in the AG’s Chambers. By implication, your analysis indicts him as either a PNP activist or an accomplice to those who sought to recruit such activists during the PNP regime. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The most superficial research on your part would reveal that my father, like the rest of his colleagues in the AG’s Chambers, have unfailingly comported themselves with the dignity, independence, and professionalism that the job requires. To accuse them all of being PNP activists is sordid to say the least.

I find it utterly nauseating that you would seek to tarnish the reputations of lawyers without adducing the slightest evidence in support of your assertion of partisanship on their part. Frankly, you owe them an apology. Might I add that some of those recruited during the PNP regime have been elevated to the Bench. Miss Justice Mangatal is an example. Are you accusing Justice Mangatal of being a PNP activist too?

With respect to the PSC, you insist on accusing them of being partial to the PNP (with the exception of Alfred Sangster) without offering any evidence. The first time you did it, I thought you were careless. The second time, however, is clearly deliberate. Nowhere in your column have you offered any evaluation of their performance or indeed offered any evidence of public service appointments based entirely on partisan grounds. Is this your idea of quality opinion journalism?

You continue with this myth of a convention of resignations, when I clearly explained to you why such a convention couldn’t exist. You have not taken issue with what I explained to you, so I can only infer that you accept my explanation, but that your agenda does not permit you to do so publicly. That you would suppress information that does not fit in with your agenda is disturbing to say the least.

Your intellectual dishonesty also applies to your treatment of the PM’s relationship with Stephen Vasciannie, where you continue to pretend that the PM’s actions are grounded in some animosity towards Prof. Vasciannie. Speculation, Ken, is not the same thing as fact.

Finally, you assert, “If Golding does not reinstate the non-partisan characteristics of the PSC, the public service will be in dire trouble”. Excuse me, but what sort of characteristic do you think the newly appointed PSC has? Given the circumstances of their appointment, do you seriously believe that they can reasonably be perceived as non-partisan? For argument’s sake, if the selection process for the SG were repeated and it considered Prof. Vasciannie the best candidate, do you believe that this new PSC would appoint him? Another thing that you conveniently omit is that the political parties previously decided on consensus as the formula for appointing members of the PSC. Former Prime Ministers Patterson and Seaga arrived at this agreement in 2005 during the Vale Royal. Perhaps you are unaware that the so-called ‘PNP PSC’ was appointed under this formula.

One day I hope you recover your conscience.


Best regards,

Hilaire (Sobers)

Read More...