So far, I gather that the "new" Public Service Commission has received only one application from Douglas Leys in response to its advertisement for applicants for the post of Solicitor General. I can imagine that Amb.Rainford, et al must be scratching their heads wondering why no other contenders have presented themselves. Doesn't take a Ph.D. in astrophysics to figure out why there isn't a flood of applications piling up on Amb. Rainford's desk.
The advertisement represents a shameful repudiation of the rule of law. A lawful recommendation for the post was already made by the Coke-PSC, which remains unaffected in law, by the subsequent dismissal of that PSC in December 2007. On what legal basis can this pseudo-PSC pretend that this recommendation was never made? What legal basis can the Governor General refuse to act on the recommendation of the Coke-PSC, but then act on the recommendation of the pseudo-PSC on the same subject matter?
In my view, Stephen Vasciannie would definitely have a cause of action against the pseudo-PSC for its failure to acknowledge, much less respect his selection as Solicitor General. At the very least, I could see a case for some sort of injunction against the pseudo-PSC, restraining it from embarking on a new (and in my view, illegal) exercise to recruit and select a Solicitor General.
Despite the pending litigation to challenge the dismissal of the Coke-PSC, this pseudo-PSC has contemptibly set April 01, 2008 as the date for the new SG to take office. This reinforces the intent of the government to have its way, regardless of the outcome of court proceedings or the rule of law itself.
After all the song and dance about Stephen Vasciannie's so-called lack of litigation experience, the advertisement does NOT identify litigation experience as the principal qualification for the post of Solicitor General, or indeed at all! Appearing in major court matters is only mentioned as one of SEVEN of the core duties of the Solicitor General!
A good friend sent me an amusing response to the Solicitor General advertisement issued by the "new" Public Service Commission.
"Dear Sir/Madam,
One considers it appropriate to bring this advertisement to your
attention. One's understanding is that there has been some controversy
attendant upon earlier attempts to fill this position, but one verily
hopes that this will not deter candidates. One is obliged to note that
the core duties associated with the post include a considerable range of
matters, and that contrary to what may have been circulated hither and
thither the candidate's degree of seasoning in the field of litigation
is a factor, but not the only one, to be considered by the Public
Service Commission. At this juncture, one also considers it significant
to mention that the aforementioned Public Service Commission may or may
not retain its current composition as of the date when applications are
received. Some writers maintain that rules of the Constitution apply to
this position, but one wishes not to opine on this issue.
Yours faithfully,
"One"
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Commentary on SG advertisement
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Article published in the Observer -Jan 19, 2008
I have an article entitled The Attorney General, the constitution and the rule of law, which appears in the Observer
Here is the link:
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/
html/20080118T200000-0500_131524_OBS_THE_ATTORNEY_GENERAL__
THE_CONSTITUTION__AND_THE_RULE_OF_LAW.asp
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Appointment of new PSC members
Yesterday, Kings House announced the appointment of five new members of the Public Service Commission, headed by Amb. Donald Rainford. The announcement was made despite the litigation that is about to commence on January 10 challenging the lawfulness of the PM's recommendation for dismissal of the previous members of the PSC. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition had asked the PM to hold off on new nominations, but the PM has clearly ignored this request. One wonders what implications this will have for the 2005 decision of the political parties to have consensus on appointments to Services Commissions. The rule of law continues to be masticated and spat out.
Another strange feature of this reappointment process is the participation of the Jamaica Civil Service Association. Under the constitution, one of the PSC members must be a nominee of the JCSA. The new JCSA nominee is Audrey Hastings, who is reportedly a former secretary of the JCSA. Given the JCSA's opposition to the PM firing of the Daisy Coke-chaired PSC, I wonder why they have opted to cooperate with the PM now in nominating someone for the new PSC.
If the Supreme Court rules that the government acted unlawfully in recommending the dismissal of the Coke PSC, then surely that must mean that the appointment of the Rainford PSC cannot stand in law. Any appointments made by the Rainford PSC must also suffer the same legal consequence. Oh what a mess! What may compound this is if the Coke PSC successfully challenges the PM's grounds for their dismissal. As I have said elsewhere, the misbehaviour grounds are unlikely to withstand proper legal scrutiny.
