Welcome to my blog

The rule of law in Jamaica is under serious threat, following the government's opposition to the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie as Solicitor General of Jamaica, and its subsequent dismissal of the Public Service Commission for alleged "misbehaviour".

Under Jamaica's constitution, the Public Service Commission has the exclusive authority to select persons for appointment to positions in Jamaica's civil service. The Solicitor General is one such position. The Solicitor General has overall administrative responsibility for the running of the Attorney General's Department. The Attorney General is appointed directly by the Prime Minister, and is therefore a political appointee.

In October 2007, Stephen Vasciannie was selected by the PSC for appointment as Jamaica's next Solicitor General. Contrary to Jamaica's constitution, Prime Minister Bruce Golding opposed the selection of Stephen Vasciannie as Jamaica's next Solicitor General. When the PSC refused to back down from its recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie, the PM dismissed the members in mid-December 2007. The Prime Minister claimed that he was dismissing the PSC members for "misbehaviour". Dismissal for "misbehaviour" is possible under Jamaica's constitution. However, the grounds of misbehaviour cited by the PM appear at best to be tenuous, and at worse, a cynical attempt to corrupt the autonomy of the PSC. The dismissal of the PSC has been challenged in the Jamaican courts by the Leader of the Opposition. I note with satisfaction that four of the five PSC members filed suit against the Prime Minister at the end of January 2008. Unfortunately, full trial is not scheduled until December 2008, primarily, if not solely, at the behest of the lawyers representing the AG and PM. In this respect, I do believe that the judiciary has dropped the ball in allowing the hearing to be deferred for so long.

[Editorial note-December 08, 2008- the litigation has now been settled]

I will post a number of news paper stories and articles that have been published on this issue, as well as other relevant information, such as the constitutional provisions that govern the PSC. I will also offer commentary from time to time on developments as they arise.

Most importantly, I do hope that interested Jamaicans and others will use this blog as a forum for the exchange of information and views. Needless to say, disagreement is more than welcome, but not disrespect.

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.


No comments: