Commentary on SG advertisement

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"