Unpublished letter to Jamaica Observer in response to its editorial on Dec 19, 2007

December 23, 2007

I write in respect of your editorial on December 19, 2007, entitled "Does Dr. Vasciannie want to be Solicitor General". This editorial largely reflects the intellectual moribundity that has beset Jamaican journalism. After six weeks of relative silence on the government's opposition to Prof. Vasciannie, you completely ignore the constitutional implications arising, preferring instead to "wrestle with whether in fact Dr. Vasciannie wants to be solicitor-general." Perhaps you might have saved yourself this intellectual torture by merely soliciting Dr. Vasciannie's view, or indeed simply inferred it by the fact that he has not withdrawn his name from the process.



The editorial entirely misses the fundamental point that the issues surrounding the selection of Prof. Vasciannie as Solicitor General have nothing to with his desire to be Solicitor General, but with respect for Jamaica's consitution and the rule of law. Speciously, you claim that the constitutional issues are amenable to multiple interpretations, as a justification for declining to express your own interpretation on what "the prime minister can or cannot do in respect of a selection by the Public Service Commission (PSC)".

Had you taken the trouble to simply read Jamaica's constitution and perhaps consult a lawyer, you might have discovered that there is no such multiplicity of interpretations. The constitution unambiguously deprives the Prime Minister of any role in the selection of a Solicitor General, giving this role exclusively to the PSC.

Equipped with this elementary understanding, it might then have occurred to you that prime ministerial confidence in the PSC's selection of Solicitor General, while perhaps ideal, is constitutionally irrelevant. Had you further made inquiry as to the constitutional purpose and design of the PSC, you might also have discovered that the political directorate is barred from interfering with public service appointments, so as to minimize, if not avoid the selection of public servants on a partisan basis.

Your aversion to diligent inquiry further leads you to assume that Prof. Vasciannie's disquiet with Mr. Golding's return to the JLP in 2002 not only established the existence of strained relations at that time, but that such alienation continues up to 2007. There is nothing in your editorial suggesting any effort to inquire of either Prof. Vasciannie or indeed Prime Minister Golding as to the status quo of their interpersonal relationship. Nothing in your editorial acknowledges that interpersonal alienation is not necessarily a permanent state, nor indeed does it necessarily preclude the co-existence of a professional relationship. Presumably, this is evidenced by a number of persons in the Prime Minister's administration who have previously been his detractors.

Quite fatuously, you suggest that this purported history of alienation between the Prime Minister and Prof. Vasciannie could possibly express itself in mutual mistrust, which in turn could manifest itself in sabotage or the suspicion thereof. If you knew anything about the functioning of the Attorney General's Chambers and the role and function of the Solicitor General, you would recognize that this is arrant nonsense. You seem to assume that the Solicitor General operates as some sort of personal lawyer to the Prime Minister when this is not so. The currency of lawyers is integrity and professionalism. It seems to elude you that it would hardly be in Prof. Vasciannie's interest to conduct himself in the position of Solicitor General, other than in conformity with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. It might interest you to know that Prof. Vasciannie has been a Deputy Solicitor General for more than four years, during which his adherence to these standards have never been impugned either by the previous government or indeed the current government. Indeed, if you do a little homework, you will note that the current Attorney General has stated that she has no difficulty with him or his work in his current capacity.

Flippantly, you conclude that Prof. Vasciannie "Until and unless he and the prime minister kiss and make up, he cannot hope to attain the highest non-elected position in the Attorney-General's Office." The clear and dangerous subtext of this statement is that prime ministerial peeve trumps respect for the constitution and the rule of law. I wonder if you will be that flippant if or when the government decides to oppose the selection of a judge by the Judicial Service Commission or a senior police officer by the Police Service Commission.


Yours,etc