Commentary on NNN interview with Attorney General

On Sunday, January 06, 2008, the Sunday Herald's lead story reported that the Attorney General and her staff are at "loggerheads" over alleged political interference by the AG in critical areas like personnel management and case management. These are areas that are typically handled by the Solicitor General who has overall administrative responsibility for the Attorney General's Chambers.




In a radio interview with Emily Crooks and Naomi the Attorney General largely confirmed, and indeed, defended her interventionist stance in the affairs of her Chambers. What was particularly striking in this regard was her shameless insistence on having Lackston Robinson reinstated in the Chambers. The selection or reinstatement of public officers falls exclusively within the domain of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and not political functionaries like the Attorney General.

According to the Attorney General, she had written to the Minister responsible for the Public Service to facilitate Lackston Robinson's return to the Chambers. The Attorney General justified her position by claming that the PSC had acted in contempt of a court order that mandated Mr. Robinson's reinstatement. By way of background, in July/August 2007, Mr. Justice Jones quashed an order of the PSC to retire Mr. Robinson in the public interest. Since then the PSC attempted to transfer Mr. Robinson to another department of government (tax) in the absence of any available position in the AG's Chambers.

Mr. Robinson initiated litigation a few weeks ago to force the PSC to reinstate him in the AG's Chambers. By consensus, the Mr. Robinson's lawyers and the AG's Chambers agreed to jointly apply to Justice Jones for a clarification of his judgment, to determine whether indeed there was an order of reinstatement, and if so, the terms. The AG has completely bypassed this judicial process, and indeed the constitutional authority of the PSC in insisting on Mr. Robinson's reinstatement.

I have read the judgment of Justice Jones. Nothing in it mandates the reinstatement of Lackston Robinson. Justice Jones ruled that the PSC had failed to follow the prescribed legal procedure in retiring Mr. Robinson, and that its decision was therefore unlawful. As all lawyers know, including the Attorney General, the proceedings before Justice Jones were in in the nature of judicial review. In simple terms, all the judge was called on to pronounce on was whether the PSC's decision to retire Lackston Robinson was done in accordance with the law or not. The judge would've had no jurisdiction to order Mr. Robinson's reinstatement, as this would be tantamount to usurping the decision-making authority of the PSC. After Justice Jones had pronounced on the legality of the PSC's decision, it was still open to the PSC to retire Mr. Robinson in the public interest, provided that it followed the prescribed legal steps to do so.


During the interview, the AG accused the PSC of acting in contempt of Justice Jones' order. This accusation is completely unfounded, having regard for the foregoing. It seems to have escaped the AG that the PSC also has the constitutional authority to transfer public officers. A transfer of Mr. Robinson to another government department at the same professional level/grade would clearly fall within the authority of the PSC.

The Attorney General justified her micro management of her Chambers on the basis that she is ultimately answerable for the work of her Chambers. However the AG wants to spin it, this is political interference, plain and simple. Prior to her arrival, there was an Executive Committee of the AG's Chambers made up of the Solicitor General, the Deputy Solicitors General and the five Divisional Directors. This committee assumed responsibility for processing and vetting applications for vacancies/promotions, and then making recommendations to the PSC. In the interview, the AG claimed that this Committee has been acting as a law unto itself with no accountability to either the AG or the Ministry of Justice. This is completely unfounded, given that final decisions were made by the PSC, and not the Exec Committeee. Since the introduction of the Administrative Reform Programme, the PSC itself has tried to devolve more authority on line managers to process personnel matters within their respective ministries/departments. While the AG pays lip service to the notion of an independent corps of lawyers in her Chambers, her conduct certainly suggests the contrary.


The Attorney General has essentially become a commissar in the AG's Chambers, which is completely untenable. The AG is supposed to confine him/herself to policy, not to the minutiae of the work of the Chambers. It is quite shocking therefore, to hear the AG defend her interventions in specific cases being handled by individual lawyers in her Chambers, such as the litigation in the Barrington Gray/DK Duncan election case. Her management approach is clearly high-handed and cannot bode well for the morale of her Chambers. She quite plainly said she has no relationship with the staff of her Chambers, and that she only relates to the acting SG. While it is true that the AG relates primarily to the SG, previous AGs have developed professional relationships with other members of staff. This was certainly the experience of my father during his almost 30 years of service to the AG's Chambers.


In the interview, the AG was quite happy to embarrass the acting SG by stating that she had written to him about certain matters but had not received a response. One would have thought that the SG's office is in Geneva, rather than in the same building as Dorothy. What prevents the AG from simply picking up the phone and asking the SG to address her questions? The AG similarly had no reservations about embarrassing the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice. The AG claimed that the PS was unable to answer her questions about matters of travel expenses and other administrative matters in the AG's Chambers.

Over Jamaica's 45 years of independence, no AG has behaved as arbitrarily as Dorothy. Not Victor Grant (JLP); not Leacroft Robinson (PNP); not Carl Rattray (PNP); not David Coore (PNP); not Winston Spaulding (JLP); not Ossie Harding (JLP); not AJ Nicholson (PNP).

The office of the AG has always been above the fray of tribal politics. Not anymore, it seems.


A final observation: in the interview, the Attorney General claimed that her department is part of the Ministry of Justice. Is this really so? Section 79 of the Constitution establishes the Attorney General as a discrete, independent office, without any reference to ministerial oversight. I hope my more experienced colleagues at the public bar can offer their insights in this regard.