Mystified by the media

Today, neither of daily newspapers mentioned the PM's reference to the PSC in his budget presentation. I remain mystified by the media's seemingly schizoid treatment of this issue.

The PSC's litigation is scheduled to start next week, and therefore one might have thought that the media might have had some interest in the PM's first public mention of this matter.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Except for the Sunday Herald, the media has given Amb. Rainford a free pass on his false claims regarding the acting appointments at the AG's Chambers.

Read More...

Sunday Herald redeems itself (sort of)

In its editorial today (April 06, 2008), the Sunday Herald partially redeemed itself by challenging Ambassador Rainford's earlier denial that the PSC approved or rescinded the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson. However, the Herald's editorial failed to take any responsibility for having previously accepted Amb. Rainford's version of events without question. The Sunday Herald actually went beyond a mere disclaimer, and apologized to Amb. Rainford for carrying the story about the cancellation of the acting appointments.

The editorial states that:

There is a widely held view that the current PSC, described by some as Prime Minister Golding’s Select Committee, has lost its independence. And recent developments in the commission and how they were handled have not done much to dispel that view.



The new PSC was conceived and delivered as an appendage of the political directorate. Congenitally, independence was never part of its institutional DNA. To suggest that the new PSC has "lost its independence", presupposes that it was independent ab initio, which is palpably not the case. The lack of independence is implicitly acknowledged in an earlier passage of the editorial which recounts the circumstances in which the new PSC was born.

In its lead story, Commission blunders, the Sunday Herald reports not only on the controversial cancellation of the acting appointments, but on the failure of the new PSC to short-list Hugh Wildman as a candidate for Director of Public Prosecutions. Hugh Wildman has publicly complained that he was not interviewed for the job. In this respect, the Sunday Herald sought answers from Amb. Rainford to the following questions:


• Were all the applicants interviewed? If not, what criteria were used in selecting the short list?

• Did all the applicants satisfy all the requirements in the advertisement? If not, why was there any exception?

• Did the PSC consider applications from Messrs Terrence Williams and Hugh Wildman? If not, was the PSC aware that the above-named submitted pplications? If yes, what factors informed the decision not to invite them for interviews?

• Were any persons with legal training (former members of the judiciary/attorneys) involved in the interviews? If no, what were the considerations for their exclusion?

• Could the PSC specify the nature of the test given to the interviewees prior to the interviews? Did the test involve legal questions? Did the test involve personnel issues or questions related to management?

• What, if any, were the legal issues pertaining to the office of DPP which were involved in the test?


However, according to the Sunday Herald, "Ambassador Rainford declined comment, saying under the Official Secrets Act, he was prohibited to comment on the matter."


This is beyond ridiculous, that in the 21st century, a public authority is invoking an antiquated Official Secrets Act to avoid accountability for its decisions. Has it not occurred to the new PSC that they would be obliged to disclose the reasons for excluding Hugh Wildman if the latter opted to challenge the PSC in a judicial review court? While I hold no brief for Hugh (he was my classmate in Law School), I cannot see any reasonable justification for not short-listing him. Unlike the other candidates, Hugh has had experience as a Director of Public Prosecutions in Grenada. Similarly, I am mystified by the exclusion of Terrence Williams from the short list of interviewees. Terrence is currently the DPP of the British Virgin Islands. The new PSC needs to explain how it could short-list relatively lawyers like Lisa Palmer and Marlene Malahoo-Forte, who have experience leading a prosecution department, but exclude Hugh and Terrence, who do. To be frank, neither Hugh nor Terrence would be my choice for DPP. However, they unquestionably had a legitimate expectation, if not a right, to be fairly considered for the job.

The news article also touched on the cancellation of the acting appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General. According to the Sunday Herald:


Ambassador Rainford said the appointment and later rescinding of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General in February, without the knowledge of the commission was “puzzling and inexplicable”.

Continuing, Rainford said he found it “highly unusual” for the chief personnel officer, Jacqueline Hickson, to act on such a sensitive issue without consulting the commission.

According to the article, "The Sunday Herald tried unsuccessfully to ascertain if it was customary for appointments of this nature to be made without consultation with the chairman, or if the chief personnel officer was empowered to approve the appointments."


Ambassador Rainford is either woefully ignorant of standard civil service practice or is being blatantly disingenuous. There is nothing unusual about the Chief Personnel Officer acting in the name of the PSC with respect to acting appointments, as I have stated in previous posts. Now, I presume that the CPO will simply refer every minute decision to the PSC for its micro-management purview. I have no doubt that the CPO acted in good faith, based on delegated authority. There is hardly a doubt in my mind that PSC 'ketch it fraid' when the AG threw a tantrum over the acting appointments, and that it was the AG's objection to the appointments that determined the final outcome.


I hope that the Sunday Herald continues to pursue the story without allowing its investigation to be framed by any considerations other than the public interest. It would be great if the rest of the Jamaican media would follow suit, but I won't hold my breath, since they seem to prefer an orthodoxy of inertia and indifference.

Read More...

The Observer drops the ball on the Foster-Pusey/Robinson acting appointments

In today's Observer, March 29, 2008, there is a disclaimer that reads as follows:

THE Observer wishes to advise our readers that in a letter to the editor published in our March 26, 2008 edition the author, James W Smith, stated that:

“The most recent of these developments has been the rescinding of the promotion of a senior staff member by the Public Service Commission only days after the same PSC had approved the recommendation. The public has also learnt of the resignation of the acting solicitor general with over a year on his contract, and the non-renewal of the contract of the deputy solicitor-general, Professor Stephen Vasciannie.

It is of grave concern that the newly appointed PSC could approve a recommendation from the acting solicitor-general for the promotion of a senior staff member and then days later rescind the same appointment.

The PSC owes an explanation as to the “extenuating” circumstances that arose in those days that caused such a reversal. I hope that the new PSC, comprising individuals with the highest levels of integrity, did not bow to political pressure on this issue. Could this be the reason for the acting solicitor-general’s resignation? And what of the future of that staff member who must be highly embarrassed by the course of these events?”

The chairman of the PSC, Donald Rainford, categorically denies this accusation and accordingly advises that no such recommendation was sent to the PSC, no such appointment was made by the PSC and consequently no such appointment was rescinded by the PSC.

Except for the views expressed in the Editorial column, the articles published in our editorial section do not necessarily represent the views of the Jamaica Observer.


The disclaimer can be found at: http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Sk1PLzIwMDgvMDMvMjkjQXIwMDQwMw==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom




In issuing this disclaimer, the Observer appears to have simply took the PSC Chairman at his word, without any journalistic inquiry of the relevant players, namely, the acting Solicitor General and the Chief Personnel Officer. Had the Observer probed more deeply, or at all, it would have discovered two letters written by the CPO. I have posted these letters under the heading "Useful links". You can otherwise access them at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402712/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-approving-acting-appointments-270208

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2402711/-letter-of-Chief-Personnel-Officer-cancelling-appointments-030308


These letters plainly evidence the approval of the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson (on February 27) and the later cancellation of the appointments less than a week later on March 3, 2008.

I am quite ashamed of the Observer for so abjectly accepting the PSC Chairman's denial without any further inquiry. It is all the more egregious, given that the correspondence between the acting Solicitor General and the CPO was openly discussed by Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis on their programme on NNN earlier this week. There really is no excuse for this shoddy and quite spineless journalism.

James W. Smith, the letter writer, has protested to the Observer, and I have supported him in this regard. I reproduce the relevant emails for your information:


James Smith's email of March 29, 2008

----- Original Message ----
From: James W. Smith
To: Vernon Davidson ; Desmond Allen ; Editorial Observer
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:01:16 PM
Subject: Ja Observer: Correction & Disclaimer - PSC & Atty General's Dept


Dear Editor
I note with interest on Page 4 of the Daily Observer of Saturday, March 29, 2008 that you issued a disclaimer and apology with respect to a letter I sent you on issues at the Attorney General's Dept.
The disclaimer raises more questions than answers and I urge you to continue to pursue the matter.
Facts
1) The Chief Personnel Officer or Scty to the Public Services Commission (someone who has acted in this position for many years) wrote a letter under her signature to the acting Solicitor General Patrick Foster approving the recommendation for the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey.
Subsequent, the same person wrote another letter in which she stated that "she was directed" to inform that the recommendation was rescinded.

This letters can be obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Questions
1) On whose authority/instructions would the Scty to the PSC approve such a recommendation? Are we to understand that she acted on her own, without consultation with the chairman or any of the members of the PSC?
Is it standard procedure for the Scty to the PSC to do this without consultation as the chairman of the PSC is suggesting?
2) Is it merely coincidental that the same day the initial letter approving the recommendation of Mrs. Foster-Pusey was sent to the acting SG, that the Attorney General, Dorothy Lightbourne would call Patrick Foster - the acting SG and "cuss" him off for making that recommendation without her consultation or input?
Did the chairman of the PSC not know of this?
3) If as we are being made to believe, that the Scty to the PSC acted on her own, why then would she issue a letter of revocation of an appointment indicating that she was "directed to". Directed to by whom? Since the AG can't or better still shouldn't direct the Scty of the PSC, then who did.
4) Is it of any interest to the public that the acting SG Patrick Foster has resigned? Does anyone care why he has resigned?

I am afraid that a game is being played out here, where the Scty of the PSC is being made out to have acted on her own on this issue and will be used as a scapegoat to cover up the most blatant political interference that this country has ever seen by an Attorney General.
If anybody listened to Nationwide Radio over the last week on this issue, the "wicket is being prepared and rolled" for such an outcome.

These matters are of public interest and must be pursued.
I don't expect this letter to be published but I expect the Observer as an independent newspaper to pursue the truth on this issue.
Of note and interest, my letter was sent to all three newspapers (Gleaner, Observer and Herald) published by all three and the Observer is the only one that has issued a retraction and disclaimer.



Regards,
James


My email of support of March 29, 2008 (addressed to Vernon Davidson and Desmond Allen of the Observer)
Desmond & Vernon,

I must support James Smith on this issue. I take strong exception to your correction/disclaimer. Undoubtedly, there are serious questions to be asked about this issue. Given this, I am astonished that the Observer chose instead to issue a disclaimer, based solely on a denial by Amb. Rainford. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but Nationwide News Network 'published' the correspondence between the Chief Personnel Officer and the acting Solicitor General on this issue. For reference, here's my blog commentary on the issue: http://vasciannie-psc.blogspot.com/2008/03/nnn-this-morning-programme-and-ags.html. Essentially, if one is to follow your disclaimer, there was never any recommendation by the acting SG, and therefore nothing to be approved or rescinded. This cannot fly based on the facts that are already known and in the public. Any responsible newspaper has an obligation to do more than simply accept uncritically the assertions of the PSC chair.

If we cannot rely on the media to probe the questions raised by James Smith, we are in more serious trouble as a nation than I thought.

Best,

Hilaire

Read More...

NNN "This Morning" Programme and the AG's Chambers

Earlier this month, it was reported that the PSC cancelled the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General, after the PSC's Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) had approved it at the request of the acting Solicitor General, Patrick Foster.

Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis, hosts of NNN's "This Morning" programme obtained copies of correspondence between Patrick Foster, Acting Solicitor General and the CPO, and discussed the issue at some length on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, and again on March 27, 2008. I appeared on the programme on March 27 in an attempt to clarify some of the misconceptions of the hosts, and indeed confusion on their part. It turns out that Patrick Foster had made two recomemndations: appoint Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General and Lackston Robinson as acting Director of Litigation in her stead. The hosts appeared to have little appreciation of the roles of the acting Solicitor General and the CPO. At one point they suggested that Patrick's recommendations were perhaps motivated by mischief, and that it might have been better for him to wait for the new SG to be installed. Both sought to read something possibly untoward in the CPO approving the recommendations, given the previous turbulence in the AG's Chambers. Incredibly, the hosts did not ask the most fundamental question: why did the PSC withdraw approval of the acting Solicitor General's recommendation? This deficiency, among others, prompted me to send the hosts a couple of emails, edited versions of are reproduced below.





My email of March 26, 2008
Subject: this morning's segment on the AG's Chambers (March 26, 2008)


Ladies,

Kudos for publicizing the correspondence between the acting Solicitor General and the Chief Personnel Officer of the PSC regarding the aborted acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson.

However, I must tell you that had I not known a thing or two about the civil service and the AG's Chambers, I would've been completely lost by your discussion this morning. To some extent I don't think either of you were clear on a few fundamentals of the civil service. For example:

1. Like all public authorities, the PSC has the power to delegate certain of its functions. In a bureaucracy of the size of Jamaica's, you really wouldn't expect the PSC to personally attend to every personnel decision, particularly acting appointments. The bureacracy would come to a grinding halt if every single personnel decision had to be made directly by the PSC. In this context, the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) would presumably be authorized to take decisions on the PSC's behalf relating to the recommendations of acting appointments of the sort made by Patrick Foster, QC, acting Solicitor General. Invariably, bureacrats like the CPO preface their letter with "I am directed to.." That sentence is there for a good reason, to emphasize that the official in question is not acting on their own initiative, but at the behest of the relevant authority (in the case the PSC). You both seemed to think there was something mysterious or questionable about the CPO's letter approving the recommendations, when there really isn't. Obviously, the PSC has the power to override the CPO, which apparently occurred in this case, when the approval was withdrawn. The other thing to bear in mind, is that the PSC/CPO is almost invariably likely to act on the recommendations of permanent heads of government departments (acting or substantive), since those senior officials will be most familiar with the needs of their departments and with the capacity of the personnel that they manage on a daily basis.

2. There is no rational basis for arguing that Patrick Foster should've refrained from making recommendations pending the installation of the SG, or that he was somehow being mischievous in making those recommendations. Again, this betrays an ignorance of the way the civil service works. Patrick, as acting SG, exercises the same powers as if he were the substantive holder of the position. He is not merely a caretaker. As a responsible chief operating officer of the Chambers, he is obliged to promote the efficiency of the Chambers, which includes making recommendations for acting positions where, in his judgment, the need arises. Further, you will note that his recommendation was that the acting posts be approved 'pending further orders'. Clearly, this implies that the tenure of the acting positions could later be terminated or modified on the recommendation of the substantive SG, or anybody else who is appointed to act in his/her stead.

I really think that you should both consult with an expert on civil service practice, someone perhaps like retired Cabinet Secretary Carlton Davies. This, I believe, would enhance your presentation of this issue immensely.

Finally, I think that in all of the discussion this morning, the most critical issue was missed: why did the PSC withdraw its approval of Patrick's recommendations? I know the answer. I hope you do do.


Hilaire



My email of March 27, 2008

Dear Emily & Naomi,

Thanks for having me on this morning.

Patrick Foster's resignation occurred around the same time that his recommendations were ultimately rejected by the new PSC. There is little doubt in my mind that the PSC was politically strong-armed into cancelling the acting appointments.

The Attorney General has personal animosity towards Nicole Foster-Pusey, hence the objection to Patrick's recommendation. The AG has personally taken up Lackston Robinson's cause. This is evidenced by a number of things, including her personal intervention with the Ministry of the Public Service to have Lackston reinstated despite the fact that there was still litigation pending in the matter. She also instructed the AG's Chambers to withdraw from this litigation. As you know, the parties had agreed on asking Justice Jones to clarify his judgment as to whether it included an order of reinstatement or not. While this process was ongoing, the AG ordered her staff to withdraw from the litigation.

As you may know, the case of Lackston Robinson is front and centre of the PM's justification for firing the PSC. Nobody in the media has really explored why. Nobody has asked why the AG has taken such an active interest in Lackston Robinson and his treatment by the PSC. By contrast, the Police Service Commission was similarly hauled over the judicial coals for retiring Det. Insp. Donovan O'Connor in the public interest. The government has not sought to equate an averse judicial review of this Police Service Commission decision with "misbehaviour". Why not?

Further, what seems to have eluded the media is that Justice Jones had harsher words for the Permanent Secretary Carol Palmer that for the PSC. Mrs. Palmer was responsible for sending Lackston Robinson on leave pending his litigation challenging his retirement in the public interest. Mrs. Palmer remains the Permanent Secretary, to the best of my knowledge. If the PSC deserved to be fired, in the eyes of the government, why not the Permanent Secretary? I don't know if you have read Justice Jones judgment. If you haven't, I would suggest that you do.

Despite all the hoopla by the AG and her PM, Justice Jones never ordered Lackston's reinstatement, as I have explained to you before. This is clear from the judgment itself. In any event, the judge would've lacked the jurisdiction to do so, for reasons that I have previously explained.

Btw, Naomi, I heard you apply a corporate analogy to the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General's Chambers that is incorrect. You suggested that the Ministry of Justice is some sort of parent company for the AG's Chambers. This is not so. There is no such 'corporate relationship'. Under the constitution of Jamaica, the AG is a separate and independent functionary. In fact there is no mention of a Minister/Ministry of Justice in the Constitution While the roles of AG and Minister of Justice are frequently combined, they are legally quite disparate. Accordingly, as I have said to you before, the AG's Chambers is not subordinate to the Ministry of Justice. For certain adminstrative purposes only, the PS of the Ministry of Justice does handle certain matters pertaining to the AG's Department. However, this does not make the AG's Chambers legally subordinate to the Ministry. It perhaps would be easier to understand were the posts of AG and Minister of Justice held by separate individuals. You may or may not know that there is no legal requirement for the AG to be a cabinet minister or indeed a parliamentarian.

I honestly think that your attention with respect to this issue should be far more sharply focused on the issue of political interference, particularly by the AG. The pattern has clearly been demonstrated with the derailment of Stephen Vasciannie's selection as SG, and the subsequent firing of the PSC. Do you honestly believe that the new PSC can do anything other than toe the JLP line? That is why it acted with dispatch to reverse the CPO, once it realized that the AG objected to Nicole Foster-Pusey's acting appointment.

There is hardly a doubt about AG's agenda to eliminate so-called PNP lawyers and replace them with loyalist-lawyers. You mark my words. I am prepared to bet that Lackston Robinson will be installed as a Deputy Solicitor General before mid-year. Further, I prepared to bet that within two years or less, the entire civil service will be dominated by JLP loyalists. Check out what's been going on in the Ministry of National Security. Check out which Minister's daughter has recently gotten a plum job despite her complete lack of qualifications for it. I say no more.

Best regards,

Hilaire

Read More...

More turbulence in the AG's Chambers

The Attorney General has reportedly blocked the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General. Mrs. Foster-Pusey, the Director of Litigation at the AG's Chambers was recommended for the appointment by the acting Solicitor General, Patrick Foster, QC. According to a news report, Mr. Foster's recommendation was initially approved by the new PSC. The appointment should've have taken effect on March 10, 2008. The PSC subsequently withdrew its approval, apparently after the Attorney General objected to the appointment.



Based on previous news reports, Nicole Foster-Pusey has not enjoyed a cordial relationship with the Attorney General. The AG has reportedly attempted on more than one occasion to interfere directly with the discharge of Mrs. Foster-Pusey's professional functions. One reported example is the AG's insistence on dictating the submissions to be made by Mrs. Foster-Pusey in an electoral case. Apparently, Mrs. Foster-Pusey is not seen as 'loyal' to the Attorney General. I would not be surprised if Patrick Foster's resignation was partly influenced by the AG's obstruction of Mrs. Foster-Pusey's appointment.

Not surprisingly, the new PSC appears to be deferential to the wishes of the AG. After all, I am sure Amb. Rainford, et al hardly wish to suffer the same fate as Daisy Coke, et al, who dared to stand up for principle.

The integrity and reputation of the AG's Chambers continues to be assailed by the current Attorney General. It still blows my mind how blatantly partisan the AG has conducted herself, largely unchallenged by public opinion. I expect that any time soon, Douglas Leys will be appointed the new Solicitor General. How he will contend with a partisan AG remains to be seen. With respect to Douglas, I am still mystified that he would insert himself in that mess. Perhaps he has correctly gauged the temperature of political and public opinion, and calculates that only a minority of persons will perceive him as a political hack. So it is.

Read More...

Congratulations to Paula Llewellyn

Heartiest congratulations to Paula Llewellyn on being named Jamaica's first female Director of Public Prosecutions. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20080304T200000-0500_133195_OBS_FIRST_WOMAN_DPP_.asp

Undoubtedly, Paula has earned this appointment with her track record of professional excellence as a prosecutor. According to recent news reports, Paula was one of four women interviewed by the new PSC. The others were Marlene Mallahoo-Forte, Vinette Allen-Graham, and Lisa Palmer. Earlier news reports had suggested that Hugh Wildman and Terrence Williams had also been shortlisted for interviews, but apparently this was not the case.

While I hardly want to rain on Paula's parade, my concern is that if the pending litigation by Daisy Coke, et al is successful, this could have adverse implications for decisions of the new PSC, including its recommendation of Paula as the new DPP.

We shall see.

Read More...

Updated chronology -January 13, 2008 to February 25, 2008

My good friend has again usefully composed an updated chronology,this time from January 13 to February 25, 2008. I very much appreciate the efforts of my friend.



Jan. 13, 2008 The Sunday Gleaner publishes an article by Lambert Brown headed “Justice, Truth and the PSC”, in which Brown points out that neither law nor convention requires Public Service Commission members to resign when the Government changes.

Jan. 13, 2008 The Sunday Gleaner publishes an article by Ian Boyne headed “Vasciannie and our Political Culture”; Boyne argues that “(o)ne of the most reprehensible and repulsive arguments being used against the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie as Solicitor General is the fact that six years ago he harshly criticized Bruce Golding, likening his return to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to a dead cat being tossed on a deck.”

Jan. 15, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes an article by Ken Chaplin under the heading “What’s Going On in the AG’s Dept?” in which he criticizes the Executive Committee of the Attorney General’s Chambers and discusses the question of payments to lawyers in the Chambers for private work.

Jan. 17, 2008 The Gleaner publishes an editorial under the heading “Arrogance, Power and Matters of Justice” concerning mainly the case of Michael Bennett, a caretaker wrongfully dismissed by the St. Elizabeth Parish Council. The editorial comments on the importance of natural justice and states: “…(T)he Michael Bennett cases will, hopefully, inspire a new metaphor for the administration, given its clumsy objection to the installation of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as the Solicitor General and the subsequent firing of the Public Service Commission.”

Jan. 19, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter from O. Hilaire Sobers entitled “The Attorney General, the Constitution and the Rule of Law” which challenges Attorney General Lightbourne’s perspectives on her role in the appointment of personnel in the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Jan. 19, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter from D.S. Morgan entitled “Strange ‘Official’” which points out various discrepancies in Ken Chaplin’s article about the Attorney General’s Chambers published in the Daily Observer on January 15.

Jan. 20, 2008 The Gleaner publishes, as its Letter of the Day, a letter from L.L. Ventour headed “A Daniel Come to Judgement” in which he argues that any objection to Professor Vasciannie’s appointment is not because of Vasciannie’s “dead cat” comments about Bruce Golding’s return to the JLP in 2002.

Jan. 27, 2008 The Public Service Commission re-advertises the post of Solicitor General in the Sunday Gleaner.

Jan. 29, 2008 The Gleaner publishes a front page story headed “PSC Misbehaved: Former Commission Member Sangster Supports Firing Body”. The Gleaner also published front page comments by Cabinet Secretary Carlton Davis on the PSC issue under the title “…Whole Case Handled Poorly, says Davis”. On page 3, the Gleaner reports that “Sacked PSC Members Take Golding to Court”. This report indicates that Daisy Coke, Mike Fennell, Edwin Jones and Pauline Findlay have sought leave to go to the Judicial Review Court to quash the recommendation of the Prime Minister that they be fired for misbehaviour.

Jan. 22, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter from O. Hilaire Sobers headed “Withdraw Partisanship Accusation, Ken”, challenging Ken Chaplin’s suggestion that lawyers in the Attorney General’s Chambers are biased in favour of the People’s National Party.

Jan. 29, 2008 The Daily Observer reports on page 3 that “Four Ex-PSC Members Sue Prime Minister”

Jan. 30, 2008 The Gleaner publishes, as its Letter of the Day, a letter entitled “The primacy of ministers in gov’t administration” by Ken Jones.

Jan. 31, 2008 The Gleaner publishes a letter by O. Hilaire Sobers under the heading “Sangster and the PSC” noting various problems inherent in the approach taken by Dr. Alfred Sangster with respect to the Public Service Commission.

Feb. 2, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter by O. Hilaire Sobers under the heading “Why Now, Dr. Sangster?” criticizing the approach taken by Dr. Sangster. Among other things, Mr. Sobers asks: “(I)f Dr. Sangster felt so strongly about the “misbehaviour” of his colleagues, why didn’t he say so before? Why now, when his erstwhile colleagues have launched a legal challenge to their dismissals. Why didn’t Dr. Sangster resign instead of waiting to be fired?”

Feb. 3, 2008 The Sunday Observer publishes a front page story under the headline: “’PM was Angry’: Golding Accused PSC of Wanting to Shove Vasciannie Down Govt’s Throat, says Coke”. The report draws from the affidavit filed by Daisy Coke, Chairperson of the PSC, on the issue of Professor Vasciannie’s selection for the post of Solicitor General.

Feb. 3, 2008 The Sunday Gleaner publishes, as Letter of the Day, a letter from former Attorney General A.J. Nicholson entitled “Sangster Lets the Puss Out of the Bag” which discusses the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister for dismissing the PSC and points out that Alfred Sangster had admitted that the so-called “dead cat” argument influenced his thinking on whether Professor Vasciannie should be appointed as Solicitor General. Senator Nicholson suggests that this adds to the tangled web that the Government has weaved in the PSC matter.

Feb. 3, 2008 The Sunday Observer publishes on page 3 a story entitled “Gov’t Axes Vasciannie from Air Policy Committee”, noting that Professor Vasciannie has been dismissed from the Air Policy Committee although the letter of dismissal praises the professor for his “tremendous work” which “will be a pillar on which the new committee will be able to build”.

Feb. 5, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes an editorial entitled “Why this Animosity towards Professor Vasciannie?” The editorial suggests there is bias against Vasciannie, notes that the Government has handled the matter poorly, points out that Vasciannie is the candidate best qualified for the post of Solicitor General and links the PSC matter to the dismissal of Vasciannie as Chairman of the Air Policy Committee.

Feb. 5, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter by Alison Irvine under the heading “Is It Personal, Mr. Golding?”, in which Ms. Irvine links the dismissal of Vasciannie from the Air Policy Committee (and his replacement by Noel Hylton) to the PSC matter. Ms. Irvine also points out that in December 2005 the Police Service Commission had sought to retire Inspector Donovan “Hux” O’Connor, but that this decision was found by the High Court to have no legal basis. The Chairman of the Police Service Commission in December 2005 was Noel Hylton.

Feb. 11, 2008 The Gleaner publishes a story under the heading “Stand Up To Them! Permanent Secretaries Urged to be More Forthright Despite Existing Threat of Political Victimisation”.

Feb. 11, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a letter from Rev. Dr. Mervin Stoddart under the heading “Very Principled Stance, Dr. Sangster”.

Feb. 11, 2008 RJR reports that the closing date for applications for the readvertised post of Solicitor General is February 11, 2008, and that as of Friday, February 8, only Douglas Leys had applied for the position.

Feb. 14, 2008 The Daily Observer publishes a story entitled “Why Hylton, and not Vasciannie, is the Right Man”, concerning the appointment of Noel Hylton to the position of Chairman of the Air Policy Committee of the Jamaican Government.


Feb. 25, 2008 RJR reports that Douglas Leys is the sole candidate for the re-advertised post of Solicitor General; RJR further reports that neither Professor Vasciannie nor Patrick Foster had re-applied for the position.

Feb. 25, 2008 The Gleaner reports, under the heading “DPP, Solicitor General Interviews This Week”, that only one Douglas Leys has applied for the post of Solicitor General.

Read More...

"New" PSC to interview candidates for the positions of Solicitor General and DPP this week

According to a news story in today's Gleaner (Feb 25, 2008), the new PSC (I prefer to call it the "pseudo-PSC") will, during the course of this week, be interviewing candidates for the posts of Solicitor General and Director of Public Prosecutions.

Douglas Leys is reported as the only applicant for the job of Solicitor General. However, during Nationwide News Network's "This Morning" programme today, Emily Crooks and Naomi Francis indicated that another candidate has belatedly submitted an application. They did not reveal the identity of this applicant, but promised to do so shortly.



The short list of applicants for the position of DPP are:

Paula Llewellyn (currently Senior Deputy DPP)

Terrence Williams (currently DPP of the British Virgin Islands, and formerly a prosecutor with the Jamaican Department of Public Prosecutions); and

Hugh Wildman (currently an adviser to the government of Grenada, and a former DPP of Grenada). Like Terrence Williams, Hugh Wildman was also previously a prosecutor in the Jamaican Department of Public Prosecutions.

As is well known by now, the Prime Minister's decision to dismiss the Coke-PSC has been judicially challenged by the Leader of the Opposition and four of the dismissed Public Service Commissioners. If the courts find that the dismissal of the Coke-led PSC was unlawful, then this must ultimately affect the legality not only of the new PSC, but any appointments made pursuant to its recommendations. I wonder whether the applicants for these positions have contemplated this possibility.

I had heard some time ago that the government was actively courting Hugh Wildman for the position of DPP. Hugh and I are batchmates, having both graduated from the Norman Manley Law School in 1988. Hugh is fierce prosecutor, but has proven to be extremely controversial/contentious. He is the only person I know who has managed to provoke lawyers (in Grenada) to take to the streets when the government of Grenada wanted to appoint him Attorney General. While Hugh and I get along quite well, the truth is that he has had a history of alienating fellow professionals both in Jamaica and Grenada. I don't question his competence as a prosecutor. However, I don't see Hugh as having the interpersonal and other skills necessary to successfully lead the Department of Public Prosecutions.

Terrence is a solid prosecutor too, but for my money, Paula Llewellyn is the best qualified of the lot. The Department of Public Prosecutions needs a leader who is not only a technically proficient prosecutor, but who has the interpersonal skills to rebuild staff morale, something which appears to have been damaged during Kent Pantry's tenure as DPP. In November 2002, the Public Service Commission appointed a panel led by David Muirhead, QC to probe the administrative functions of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, following press reports of organizational disharmony. One source of this disharmony appears to have been lack of a clear system of appraisal or opportunities for promotion. Paula Llewellyn herself acted as Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for years before she was ultimately confirmed. In 2003, prosecutors took industrial action to protest the lack of implementation of recommendations made by the Muirhead committee with respect to improved systems of appraisal and promotion. While the problems of the Department of Public Prosecutions cannot all be attributed to the outgoing DPP, his successor will have the challenge of infusing the Department with an esprit de corps that has been missing for some time. I don't see any of the applicants but Paula Llewellyn having the capacity for this.

Read More...

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"

Read More...

Douglas Leys re-applies for Solicitor General post - RJR - Feb 04, 2008

According to a news report from RJR, Douglas Leys has re-applied for the position of Solicitor General.

Read More...

"New" PSC has started advertising for SG

According to an RJR report today, the "new" PSC advertised today for applications for the post of Solicitor General. http://www.radiojamaica.com/content/view/4985/26/

The mutilation of the rule of law continues.

Read More...

Post of Solicitor General to be advertised (again!)

According to a news report today from RJR (http://www.radiojamaica.com/content/view/4821/26/), instructions have been issued for the post of Solicitor General to be advertised in the local press in the next 10 days.




Assuming the accuracy of this story, these instructions emanate from the "new" PSC, perhaps acting on the instructions of the government. This step reinforces the utter contempt that the government/"new" PSC has for the rule of law, and the pending judicial review litigation. As far as I am aware, the Coke-led PSC made a selection that was in accordance with the law. On basis therefore, can the Rainford-led PSC ignore the previous recommendation and commence the process of selection anew? If a new SG is selected by the Rainford PSC, what are the legal implications for his/her appointment, if the courts find that the Coke PSC was unlawfully dismissed? Would that not mean that all decisions and processes emenating from the Rainford PSC are inherently null and void?


The government's contempt for due process and the rule of law seems unbridled. This contempt has victimized Stephen Vasciannie, the Coke PSC, and not least of all the people of Jamaica. Lamentably, many Jamaicans are either indifferent to, or actively supportive of the government's contempt for the rule of law, and by extension, its contempt for the very same people. We just don't seem to get it.

Read More...

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.

Read More...