Alfred Sangster breaks ranks

As has been reported in the news, Dr. Alfred Sangster has publicly defended the PM's dismissal of the Coke-chaired PSC, of which he was a member. According to Dr. Sangster, the PSC's failure to reinstate Lackston Robinson constitutes misconduct that warrants dismissal. He also pointed the failure of the the PSC to review its recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie (at Dr. Sangster's urging) after the Stephen Vasciannie's 'dead cat' reference came to his (Dr. Sangster's) attention.

Dr. Sangster's public utterances coincide with the commencement of litigation by his erstwhile colleagues to challenge the dismissal.




Dr. Sangster's pronouncements are disturbing, and indeed execrable. Firstly, he is factually wrong about the PSC's supposed failure to reinstate Lackston Robinson, given that the Justice Jones never ordered Mr. Robinson's reinstatement, when he quashed the PSC decision to retire Robinson in the public interest. Dr. Sangster has clearly acquainted himself with the judgment of Justice Jones, before attacking his former colleagues. Dr. Sangster has correctly pointed out that he was not a member of the PSC that was the subject of Justice Jones' judgment (the PSC was at the time made up of Daisy Coke, Pauline Findlay, Mike Fennell, Edwin Jones, and George Philip; Sangster replaced Philip when he died in April 2007)). One might have thought that pride alone might have impelled Dr. Sangster to protest his dismissal at least on this ground, given that he was not a member of this 'misbehaving' PSC.

One has to wonder why Dr. Sangster chose to speak at this time, or at all. While it is his prerogative not to join in the litigation, I see no rational or ethical basis for belatedly excoriating his colleagues, when he well knows that the matter is under litigation. I can only suspect that he was intent on prejudicing the minds of judges who may later be assigned to adjudicate on the claim of Daisy Coke, et al.

I can hardly believe shame has not prevented him from raising the 'dead cat' reference. He clearly stated that his concern arose only after the PSC had signed off on the recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie. The essential implication of Dr. Sangster's thinking is that Stephen Vasciannie should have been denied selection as SG, not because of lack of qualifications, but for a public criticism of Bruce Golding made in 2002! For me, if this is Sangster's mode of thinking, then he certainly had no place on the PSC. Sangster speculated that this commentary could create strained relations between the Stephen Vasciannie (as SG) and the Prime Minister. Naturally, of course, Dr. Sangster did not require any evidence to substantiate his position. Sangster reflects the very worst in Jamaican governance: the privileging of personality over principle, and not to mention, suss over hard evidence; loyalty to expedience over ethicality; and cowardice over conscience.

I have submitted a letter to the press on the issue, which hopefully will be published. I discussed the matter on the Breakfast Club yesterday morning with Trevor Munroe and Peter Espeut. Apparently Dr. Sangster had been invited on the programme, but declined.


Sangster should be ashamed of himself.