Epilogue- my last letter to the press on the PSC issue

A week ago I submitted a letter to both Jamaican daily newspapers on the 'settlement' of the PSC litigation. So far neither of them have seen fit to publish it, so I am posting it here for those who are interested.



Dear Editor,

The former PSC members have capitulated to the PM and the AG under the guise of a “settlement”. Contrary to media hype, the PM has not apologized for, or withdrawn his claim of misbehaviour. This capitulation could have been done much more efficiently by simply resigning a year ago instead of pursuing expensive time-consuming litigation. The capitulation of the PSC litigants effectively completes the constitutional castration of the PSC, and sets a precedent for the Prime Minister and his successors to impose their will on other Service Commissions. I don’t see any Service Commission nominating candidates for positions without first checking with Jamaica House.

Alfred Sangster gloatingly characterizes his erstwhile colleagues as “arrogant and stupid” for having the temerity to stand up to the Prime Minister and his Attorney General. Dr. Sangster is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I would suggest that his justification for withdrawing his endorsement of Prof. Stephen Vasciannie is just as susceptible to the label of stupidity, if not arrogance. A year after he was fired, Dr. Sangster still has not mastered the concept of constitutional misbehaviour; he now accuses his former colleagues of ‘sociological and political misbehaviour’, a concept unknown to Jamaican constitutional law.

Piously, Dr. Sangster claims that he was “praying that some solution would come” and that he is “very happy that this has come, so people have to make friends again and people will have to restore relationships and dignity". What Dr. Sangster didn’t mention is that his “prayers” included interjecting himself in the litigation by filing two affidavits in support of the Prime Minister and Attorney General. These affidavits were filed on October 20 and October 23, 2008, less than two months before the scheduled start of the litigation on December 08, 2008.

At the end of the day, all of the ex-PSC members have capitulated to Prime Ministerial tyranny, aggravating the damage already inflicted on the constitution and the rule of law. I hope that future generations will be more forgiving of them than I am.

Yours truly,

O. Hilaire Sobers
ohilaire@yahoo.com
Washington, DC
December 10, 2008

Read More...

The capitulation of the PSC

As I said on RJR on Monday December 8, the so-called settlement of the litigation between the ex-PSC members and the PM & AG was really a capitulation. Despite what has been reported in the media, the PM did not withdraw the charge of misbehaviour. According to the joint press release by the parties:


The Parties accept that it is not in the national interest to pursue this matter and have agreed to discontinue the action. (Paragraph 3)

The Parties accept without admission that the working relationship between the Parties has irretrievably broken down so that any workable association depending on trust and confidence has been rendered impossible. In the circumstances, this situation is not conducive to good governance and the national interest (Paragraph 4)

The First Respondent [the Prime Minister] states categorically that the recommendation for the termination of the Claimants' appointment as members of the Public Service Commission was not intended to suggest, or be construed that there were any acts of dishonesty, corruption or personal misbehaviour on the part of the Claimants during their tenure as members of the Public Service Commission. (Paragraph 5)

The Respondents recognize the services of the Claimants in various areas of national life and thank them for their services. (Paragraph 6).





The "national interest", rather than being enhanced by this so-called settlement, has been betrayed. The Public Service Commission is constitutionally designed to operate independently of the political directorate. The Judicial Service Commission and the Police Service Commission have the same constitutional status. The immediate effect of the "settlement" is to transform the PSC and their fellow Service Commissions into extensions or satellites of the political directorate. I cannot see any of the Service Commissions now daring to nominate candidates for appointment without getting the all-clear from Jamaica House. Members of Service Commissions can expect to have no better security of tenure than members of statutory boards. So from now on, whenever there's a change of government, I expect that members of Service Commission will meekly offer their resignations to give the new government a free hand in ensuring that these Commissions remain satellites of the prevailing party in power.


In his affidavit of March 12, 2008, the Prime Minister justified his dismissal of the ex-PSC members on the ground of misbehaviour. To say that the dismissal of the members "was not intended to suggest, or be construed that there were any acts of dishonesty, corruption or personal misbehaviour" does not constitute some sort of apology for, or withdrawal of the PM's broad allegation of misbehaviour. As I have noted in previous posts, "misbehaviour" has a particular legal meaning. Apart from that, at no point during or before the litigation was there any allegation made of "dishonesty, corruption or personal misbehaviour" as such. So really, what is the purpose of including this in the press release?

For the PM, the "misbehaviour" of the ex-PSC members included:

* nominating Stephen Vasciannie for the post of SG in the face of objections by the AG; and in breach of "assurances" that the they would make no nominations without first consulting the AG and the PM (para. 19)

* including non-PSC members like John Leiba and Carlton Davis in the deliberations leading up to the nomination of Stephen Vasciannie (para. 19)

* an adverse judicial review of the PSC's decision to retire Lackston Robinson in the public interest; attempting to "destroy" the reputation of Lackston Robinson by removing him from his post at the AG's Department; (paras. 9, 20)

* bias in the treatment of Douglas Leys' application for SG vis a vis Stephen Vasciannie's application (paras. 9, 20); this bias was supposedly aggravated by the fact that Pauline Findlay and Michael Hylton have a "personal relationship" (para.9;); that this factor militated against Douglas Leys' application because Michael Hylton (as SG) had recommended Lackston's removal and Douglas Leys had opposed it.


Very curiously, at paragraph 22 of this affidavit, the Prime Minister clearly states that:

"I took the view...and remain firmly of the view that all these matters constituted misbehaviour on the part of the members of the Public Service Commission...which destroyed any possible working relationship based on trust and confidence that ought to exist between the Commission and the Government..."

This sentiment is largely reproduced in paragraph 4 of the joint press release. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems fair and reasonable to infer that the PM has not altered his fundamental position that the ex-PSC members were guilty of misbehaviour that warranted their dismissal. Notions of working relationships, trust, confidence have no relevance to the legal question of whether the ex-PSC members were justifiably dismissed or not. In any event, the supposed decomposition of the relationship between the Commission and the government was prompted entirely by the government's unlawful resistance to the Commission's selection of Stephen Vasciannie as SG. In both the affidavits of the PM and the AG, the implication is clear that the PSC would not have been fired had they simply acceded to the AG's demand to 'reconsider' the nomination of Stephen Vasciannie.

I previously already addressed the PM's ridiculous claim regarding the Lackston Robinson litigation. It is worth emphasizing that this litigation occurred a year before the PM took office, and there is no record of the PM alleging misbehaviour against the PSC while he was Leader of Opposition. The very notion that an adverse judicial ruling is now ground for dismissal is an extremely dangerous precedent to set, something which appears to have eluded the Jamaican intelligentsia and public on a whole.

As I said on RJR last week, the PSC litigants have regrettably opted to treat this litigation as some sort of private dispute between themselves; and in the process completely ignoring the public interest implications of so doing. The actual terms of the settlement are confidential and the parties are enjoined from discussing any aspect of the settlement publicly. The failure of the PSC to pursue this litigation means that the Supreme Court of Jamaica has been deprived of the opportunity to pronounce on the critical constitutional and legal issues arising, particularly, the question of "misbehaviour". Other issues that have gone by the way side include the question of whether the PSC members were afforded natural justice before dismissal.

Instead of acting in the national interest, the PSC has left Jamaica with a prime ministerial definition of "misbehaviour" which the current PM and his successors will be free to apply until and unless they are restrained by judicial intervention.

To add insult to injury, former PSC member Alfred Sangster has wasted no time in characterizing his erstwhile colleagues as "arrogant and stupid" for daring to stand up (initially) to prime ministerial tyranny. According to a Gleaner report of December 09, 2008, Sangster identified disagreements with the PM and the treatment of Lackston Robinson "were areas in which the public service commission was in fact arrogant and in my view, stupid, at times, and really should have had a lot more dialogue with the PM."


Sangster has removed any doubt about the who owns his balls. And it ain't him. Shamelessly, he allowed himself to be fired for "misbehaviour" when indeed at he wasn't even a PSC member at the time of the Lackston Robimson episode. Apart from that, he still pushes this dead cat nonsense as a ground for disqualifying Stephen Vasciannie from holding the position of SG. In this regard, he has continued to "sweat Bruce's fever" to borrow an expression from Belize. Golding himself has never asserted that Vasciannie's dead cat reference was a disqualification, so why does Sangster continue to take it upon himself to do so? And really now, if Sangster felt so strongly that his colleagues were going in the wrong direction, why didn't he simply resign before being fired?

On the other hand, I think the ex-PSC members deserve the opprobrium that has been heaped on them by Sangster. While I don't think they were arrogant or stupid, per se, their capitulation has left them entirely vulnerable to attacks of this kind. That for me, is stupid, if not arrogant.

All of the ex-PSC members including Sangster have betrayed the public interest.


Piously, Sangster welcomed the news of the "settlement" claiming that:

"I was praying that some solution would come and I am very happy that this has come, so people have to make friends again and people will have to restore relationships and dignity,".

As I have said in a letter to the newspapers (so far unpublished), Sangster has not indicated that his "praying" including an affidavit in support of the PM and the AG. So how does Sangster credibly claim to be favouring settlement when up to October 2008, he was a active participant in the litigation against his ex-colleagues? And how do you publicly trash your ex-colleagues and then expect people to "make friends again" and "to restore relationships and dignity"? Is this guy kidding me???


Almost a year ago, I started this blog perhaps in the vain hope of mobilizing, if not engaging public opinion on this crucial issue involving the rule of law, governance and constitutionalism. I said in my introduction that:


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".


Following the capitulation of the PSC, the rule of law is now under even greater threat. What strikes me as particularly sad and disappointing is the virtual lack of public outrage at this development. If the newspapers are anything to go by, only D.S. Morgan has expressed any disquiet over the capitulation of the PSC. See letter in Jamaica Observer, December 12, 2008: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20081211t190000-0500_143608_obs__b_dear_editor___b_.asp


If the Jamaican public doesn't care about the rule of law in Jamaica, then perhaps the time has come for me to follow their example. I won't be updating this blog anymore unless there is some development that warrants it. I doubt that will happen.

Read More...

Abject Alfred

Alfred Sangster has filed an affidavit in defence of the PM and AG in the litigation brought against them by his erstwhile PSC colleagues.

The affidavit can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8526690/Alfred-Sangsters-Affidavit.

Sangster's affidavit demonstrates a comprehensive surrender of whatever was left of his backbone and indeed another part of his anatomy that is associated with manhood.

Sangster's affidavit largely elaborates on his earlier public excoriation of his PSC colleagues. Some of the salient elements of his affidavit are as follows:



1. Sangster supported Vasciannie's appointment as SG until his 'discovery' of Vasciannie's 'dead cat' comment. According to Sangster, he was unaware of this comment until he read about it in a Mark Wignall column published in December 2007.

2. After a round of meetings with the PM/GG, he claims that he prepared a letter of resignation dated November 26, 2007 (before seeing the dead cat comment, but was persuaded not to proffer it because of the implications of his "JLP" name. At paragraph 14, Sangster states that he supported Vasciannie's nomination until he discovered the dead cat comment. At a meeting of the PSC on November 26, 2007, Sangster confirms that he was part of a unanimous recommendation to affirm Vasciannie's nomination as SG.

3. Sangster claims that he tried to persuade his colleagues to reconsider Vasciannie's nomination in light of the dead cat comment, but without success. Incredibly, Sangster claims that Vasciannie had an obligation to disclose the dead cat comment, despite wide publication of the comment in 2002 in Vasciannie's own column in the Gleaner.


4. Sangster accuses Pauline Findlay of being "high-handed" in refusing to reconsider the nomination of Stephen Vasciannie (in light of the objections of the PM). For Sangster, Pauline Findlay's position established the PSC's position of "arrogance and non-retreat". Sangster states that Pauline Findlay's 'high-handedness' occurred at a meeting of the PSC on October 31, 2007 (following a meeting on the same day between the PSC and the PM).

5. Sangster further accuses the PSC of improper conduct in failing to reinstate Lackston Robinson in his position at the AG's Chambers. Sangster was not a member of the PSC when the Supreme Court quashed Robinson's retirement in the public interest. Sangster claims that the PSC's attempt to assign Robinson to the Tax Administration Department was "an attempt to circumvent the judgment of the Court".

6. Ultimately, Sangster accuses the PSC of misbehaviour for (a) their "arrogant position" to the Prime Minister "and in the decisions they made"; (b) their conduct with respect to Lackston Robinson. Sangster concludes that "it was unthinkable for me, and still is to become embroiled in a legal suit against the Prime Minister and tangentially the Governor General, which is in my opinion not in the public interest."


I so hope that the Claimants will ask for Sangster to be produced for cross-examination. It is quite obvious that Sangster was cowed by the PM's displeasure, forgetting (?) that the PSC doesn't exist to rubber stamp the directives of the executive arm of government. This is clearly revealed by Sangster's characterization of the PSC as arrogant for refusing to bow to the PM.

Sangster shamelessly parades the 'dead cat' comment as justification for reconsidering Vasciannie's nomination, despite the fact that he had endorsed Vasciannie even after his supposed letter of resignation of November 26, 2007. Sangster's discovery of the dead cat comment can after the meeting of November 26, 2007. What then was the reason for threatening to resign at a time when he was unaware of the comment, and indeed had already endorsed Vasciannie? Sangster himself says that he only changed his mind about Vasciannie after the dead cat comment (paragraph 14). Of what relevance was a five year old comment to Vasciannie's qualifications for the job of SG? Is Sangster saying that any criticism of politicians disqualifies competent professionals from holding positions in the public service??

If Sangster was so uncomfortable generally about the behaviour of the PSC, why didn't he simply resign without more?

The PSC's role in the Robinson litigation is one of the grounds of "misbehaviour" cited by the PM in firing the PSC members, including Sangster. As a matter of pride, one might have thought that Sangster would object to being indicted for misbehaviour, together with his former colleagues. Instead, Sangster ends up condemning his colleagues (and himself by extension), by obsequiously parrotting the PM's indictment of the PSC. Apart from this, Sangster wasn't part of the PSC at the time of the adverse judicial review against the PSC. On what moral or legal authority does Sangster pontificate on the implications of the ruling or the PSC's decision to transfer Robinson elsewhere?


In my view, the only PSC member guilty of 'misbehaviour' is Sangster himself. As a member of the PSC, he was obliged to exercise constitutional authority independently of the views or preferences of the Prime Minister or his surrogates. He was likewise obliged to exercise his authority unfettered by irrelevant, and indeed irrational considerations such as Vasciannie's so-called 'dead cat comment'. Sangster has revealed himself to be little more than a cowardly mouthpiece for the JLP government. In plain terms, Sangster is a damn disgrace, an embarrassment to the office that he held, and indeed to the national honour he holds.

Read More...

The government continues to politicize the public service- appointment of Marcia Forbes

It should not surprise anyone that the ruling JLP has now engineered the appointment of Marcia Forbes as the Permanent Secretary of the the new Ministry of Telecommunications & Mining. As the Gleaner points out in its editorial of September 08, 2008, Mrs. Forbes' competence is not in issue; its her allegiance to the JLP. It is no secret that Mrs. Forbes was a leading member of the JLP's communications and advertising team in the last general elections.



Despite Mrs. Forbes' qualifications, it is difficult to resist the inference that Mrs. Forbes's appointment is more about rewarding her political loyalty than her competence. The Opposition PNP has said as much. According to Mrs. Forbes, she simply "heard" about the vacancy. There is no evidence (so far) that the position was advertised or that other candidates were short-listed. Mrs. Forbes appointment reinforces the status of the Public Service Commission as an extension of Jamaica House. A pliant eunuch no less. The Gleaner editorial rightly notes that a connection has been made between the Forbes' appointment and the Vasciannie/PSC imbroglio. The Gleaner also reminds us of the JLP's campaign promise of transparent governance, which evidently has gone the way of all flesh, given other partisan appointments such as Joan Gordon-Webley and Sherene Golding. In terms of public service appointments, the JLP government's methodology of appointment is fundamentally no different than that of the notorious Pickersgill Committee of the 1970s.

Curiously, the Gleaner seems to think that despite Mrs. Forbes' political baggage, she will be a 'natural fit' and that she "will do a good non-partisan job." What a non-sequitur! While there is no quarrel about Mrs. Forbes' competence, it certainly cannot follow that competence equals non-partisanship, or indeed the appearance of it! The notion of appearance of non-partisanship being as important as the actual non-partisanship still hasn't caught on in Jamaica.


The Gleaner lamely concludes that the

The issue, though, has to move beyond this specific appointment and Mrs Forbes to a full and frank debate about the structure of government and the constitutional framework within which the country manages its affairs. We start on the basis of the Constitution being as it is now and has to be respected, but that does not mean we have to be ossified.


The Jamaican press, including the Gleaner, has consistently let governments off the hook when it comes to governance. We don't need any debate about the structure of government, blah blah. We've already had many such debates. What is required is for the government to be held to account for contaminating the rule of law and the constitution that governs us. Why doesn't the Gleaner start there?

Read More...

Plums for the boys?

In this year's Independence honours, the government has conferred the Order of Jamaica on Mr. R.N.A. Henriques "for contribution to the legal profession". According to David P. Rowe (in the Sunday Herald of August 10, 2008) this award is "richly deserved". Prof. Rowe praises Mr. Henriques for being "a mentor to junior lawyers in our jurisdiction", and that "Senior politicians, oil companies and high net worth individuals have properly trusted their legal business to him". Prof. Rowe also cites Mr. Henriques' "extensive Privy Council experience" as "an attribute which few Jamaican practitioners can overcome".

I am not sure why extensive Privy Council experience is something to 'overcome', but I digress.

What Prof. Rowe does not mention in his panegyric, is that Mr. Henriques appears to be the personal lawyer of the Prime Minister. Mr. Henriques heads the legal team defending the PM and the AG in the litigation initiated by Daisy Coke, et al to challenge their dismissals.


On appearance alone, it is difficult to resist the cynical conclusion that Mr. Henriques is being honoured more for his loyalty than his track record at the Bar. While Mr. Henriques is undoubtedly an able lawyer, I can't see anything in his resume that particularly distinguishes him from the rest of the legal profession. Certainly, Mr. Henriques has largely been a preserver of the status quo; there is nothing that I can attribute to him that has been in any way ground-breaking or which has palpably advanced the legal profession as a whole.

The award of OJ to Mr. Henriques reminds me of the OJs conferred by the PNP government on David Coore, Winston Jones, and Ralph Brown. On the face of it, the OJs were just plums for the boys more for for loyalty than national contribution. I am not saying that Mr. Henriques is a party hack. I am simply saying that I see nothing in his resume to merit the award, other than his connection to the Chief Servant.

Read More...

This is why lawyers left, Senator Tavares-Finson

I have been remiss in not issuing this follow-up post for the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson. Senator Tavares-Finson would have us believe that the Attorney General is a paragon of virtue who has been unfairly blamed for the exodus from her Chambers. A good friend and supporter of the blog has suggested a few reasons for the exodus. Senator Tavares-Finson might wish to consider them when he is through flying over the AG's nest.


Here goes:


1. The AG directed then Acting SG Patrick Foster to take over a case from Nicole 3Foster Pusey when the latter had argued a point contrary to the JLP's position regarding the election in Eastern Hanover. The point that she argued was accepted by the court as good law. Why would the AG seek to intervene in a case of such a sensitive nature, but more in the "party political" meaning of sensitivity?



2.The AG directed the Executive Committee to cease and desist from making recommendations for appointments and promotions in the Chambers. She later reiterated this view at a general meeting of attorneys where she indicated that she was to be involved in any such decisions. Why would the AG, as a politician, seek to be involved in the staffing of the public service in this way? This was a concern, though she never actually made any recommendations in that area.



3. The AG commanded the Department to take no steps in seeking clarification of Jones J's order in the Lackston Robinson case, despite their being good grounds for seeking this clarification. In the context of at least one other case, Jones J's order was not the model of clarity. Bear in mind that, at the time, Mr. Robinson had two appeals pending against Government in that area. Was it appropriate for him to resume duties in the Department that had conduct of the respondent's case?



4. The AG sought to publicly vilify Prof. Vasciannie in the Senate regarding the Trafigura Affair, for the sin of advising the government on what needed to be done to facilitate an investigation (and for also pointing out the implications of not facilitating the investigation). She certainly broke tradition when she tackled the matter the way she did that day. This may be seen in the context of her opposition to his appointment as SG, and her ceasing to seek his advice thereafter on any matter.



5. The AG ranted at the Acting SG when he recommended that Nicole Foster Pusey act as Deputy SG, while he was acting as SG. When a new SG was appointed the Acting SG would revert to his post as Deputy SG, and Nicole would revert to her post as Director. One does not need to be a particle physicist to see the connection between that and the almost immediate withdrawal, without any reason being given, of the approval previously given to that recommendation, certainly by the Chief Personnel Officer and arguably on behalf of the Public Service Commission, a practice previously sanctioned with respect to acting appointments.



6. the AG insisted that the FINSAC files be retrieved from Mike Hylton (where they were at FINSAC's request) and be dealt with by the Chambers. It became obvious immediately that the Chambers, with its current workload and its depleted staff, could not take those files "cold" and argue the upcoming appeal in the Paul Chen Young case at the designated time, so the matter had to be farmed out to another private lawyer whose first action was, of course, to seek a postponement of the appeal so that he could prepare.



7. The direct, and angry intervention of the AG when Nicole Foster Pusey agreed not to pursue costs against Abe Dabdoub after his victory in the courts over Daryl Vaz. It may be noted that Dabdoub lost on the point involving the Returning Officer and the Chambers. Bear in mind that Dabdoub had actually withdrawn his original Petition and replaced it with one in which he did not actively pursue the case against the Returning Officer and the Attorney General. A question of interest would be: should costs be paid by him in that context?



For the benefit of Senator Tavares-Finson, and others of like mind, it was instances such as these that led some members to reason and ask themselves why should they have to put up with situations like that, particularly when they were being paid quite inadequately for the hard work and level of skill they brought to bear on the work that they were doing.


The AG has not always been an ogre in her dealings with the Chambers. In fact some members of staff have noted that she has been consistently pleasant in her dealings with them. It makes one wonder why she chose to be so unpleasant in her dealings with others and with certain issues. Was that in keeping with her nature, or was she "only obeying orders"?

Read More...

Patrick Foster replies to Tom Tavares-Finson

I am belatedly mentioning that Patrick Foster, QC, replied comprehensively to Tom Tavares-Finson's specious claims about the AG's Chambers. Patrick's letter appeared in the Observer of July 13, 2008:

http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080712t220000-0500_137806_obs_so_unfair__senator_tavares_finson_.asp



Patrick asserted that in his "capacity as deputy solicitor-general and acting solicitor-general", he had had "detailed discussions with all the attorneys who have recently resigned from the Chambers and none have indicated to me that their resignations were related to the attorney-general's review of the fee arrangements in the Chambers". Unless Tom Tavares-Finson can demonstrate that Patrick is being untruthful, I do believe he owes an apology (at the very least) to the lawyers of the Chambers.

Patrick indicated that the attorneys left for a variety of reasons, but declined to disclose any of them. I think this is a pity, as I do think that the public does deserve to know in clear and unambiguous terms the reasons for this unprecedented exodus from the AG's Chambers.


Patrick made it clear that none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG's review of the fee-charging practice. Similarly, none of the attorneys had any objection to the AG setting or reviewing policy in this area. He clarified that this practice is authorized by the Staff Orders, a minor detail that Tavares-Finson omitted to mention in his assault on the lawyers of the Chambers. It is curious, but not surprising, that the AG herself is yet to speak on the matter, either to defend her staff or to correct Tom Tavares-Finson's wild allegations.

I am still hoping that former staff lawyers at the AG's Chambers will step forward and disclose precisely what has transpired since Dorothy Lightbourne became AG in September 2007. This is not a private matter, and the public interest demands full disclosure, in my view. I suspect that public servants are loathe to expose malfeasance or abuse of authority occurring in their departments. Presumably, this is in keeping with the culture imposed by the Official Secrets Act. For me, remaining silent is the equivalent of protecting those would abuse the authority that has been entrusted to them by the public.

We will see.

Read More...

One flew over the AG's nest?

JLP Senator Tom Tavares-Finson is a senior lawyer of many years standing. According to the Daily Observer (July 09, 2008), during last Friday's Senate sitting the goodly senator reportedly claimed the existence of "an obvious correlation between recent departures from the Attorney General's Department and the current review of the practice of employees collecting payments for work done for Government agencies."

Senator Tavares-Finson claimed that "Government lawyers were charging fees equivalent to those charged by lawyers in private practice to do Government work and were being paid with taxpayers' money." According to Tavares-Finson J$40.9 million was collected by "a few enterprising senior lawyers (at the AG's Department)." He emphasized that "this money was shared by a few lawyers and, while I have no intention of calling any names, let me say that there seems to me to be an obvious correlation between the recent departures and the beneficiaries of this largesse".



Tavares-Finson then concluded that:

* the review of the earning capacity of senior Government lawyers, as well as the attorney general's decision to review employment practices in the department were at the root of the tensions within the department.

* Efforts to blame resignations on the management style of the attorney general are groundless.

It seems that Tavares-Finson's flight over the AG's nest has rendered him impervious to logic, evidence, or just plain decency. Certainly, given the silence of the AG so far, it is fair to assume that Tavares-Finson views coincide with her own. Essentially, Tavares-Finson has accused government lawyers of running a fee-charging racket on at taxpayers' expense, and then walking away in a huff when the racket was stopped by the AG.

I am reliably informed that Tavares-Finson made no inquiries of any of the senior lawyers at the AG's Chambers about the fees supposedly collected. If indeed the fee-charging scheme is under review, why not wait until the review has been completed and documented before attacking these lawyers? Again, my information is that lawyers who did private work (for statutory bodies, for example) earned no more than J$30,000 (each) per annum, on average. If Tavares-Finson has evidence of lawyers collecting J$40M, does he not have an obligation to produce the evidence? Where would Tavares-Finson get this 'information' from other than Dorothy Lightbourne? It is curious that the AG has never publicly attributed the exodus of lawyers to internal disputes over the fee issue. by innuendo, Tavares-Finson has accused senior lawyers like Stephen Vasciannie, Patrick Foster, Nicole Lambert, et al of (a) being "beneficiaries" of "largesse" and (b) departing when the largesse was supposedly cut off. This is outrageous. I would challenge Tavares-Finson to repeat his claim outside of parliament, where his word would not be protected by absolute privilege.

How can Tavares-Finson credibly exonerate the AG given the history of her tenure at the AG's Chambers? How does Tavares-Finson explain that no AG in Jamaica's history has suffered an exodus of almost 1/3 of their Chambers in under a year? Does he seriously believe that Patrick Foster opted to leave before his contract was up, because he was being deprived of an extra $30,000 per annum? Is Tavares-Finson aware that some lawyers resigned before they had identified an alternative? Is he also aware that the AG pointedly accused some lawyers of being PNP sympathizers? Why does he ignore the fact that the AG contrived to derail Stephen Vasciannie's nomination as SG? What about the withdrawal of Nicole Foster-Pusey's acting appointment? How about the AG's interference in litigation being conducted under the supervision of the then acting Solicitor General? If the AG's management style is so stellar, why hasn't the AG's Chambers so far not succeeded in replacing the lawyers who have departed? Why, for example, is there no replacement yet for Stephen Vasciannie, as head of the international division? Why are there currently no Deputies-Solicitor General? I could go on and on.


Lawyers of the AG's Chambers, past and present, need to stand up and firmly rebuff this scandalous assault on their reputations. Nothing less will suffice.

Read More...

More on departures from the AG's Department

The Daily Observer of June 18, 2008 and the Sunday Herald of June 22 have both highlighted the resignation of Nicole Foster-Pusey within the context of the spate of resignations from the AG's Department since the AG took office.

In the Observer's story entitled 'Stop the Wild Allegations', the AG laughably denies that any of the resignations have anything to do with her. According to the AG:

"I don't know anything about resignations, speak to the Solicitor General. I don't know anything about tension, I wish the media would stop with these wild allegations and go to source,"; and

"Persons who resigned spoke with him (Solicitor General) and gave their reasons for leaving. I'm seeing names I don't even know. I've never met the people,"



Who does the AG think she is kidding? So how does she explain almost a dozen lawyers leaving the AG's Chambers since her arrival? I also gather that significant numbers of support personnel have also left in the wake of Hurricane Dorothy. How can AG credibly claim not to know about the resignations or the tension (to put it mildly) that has existed between her and the staff? How does she explain the resignation of Patrick Foster before his contract ended? How does she explain the timing of his resignation? Patrick resigned right after his recommendation of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Solicitor General was overruled. Is Hurricane Dorothy pretending that she has never assailed the members of AG Department as supporters/sympathizers of the PNP or that doing so is likely to create 'tension'??? What about her throwing some members of her staff under the bus? She was quite happy to call Stephen Vasciannie's name in the Senate when he was completely unable to defend himself regarding the letter of advice on the Trafigura matter. What about Nicole Foster-Pusey and the Dabdoub litigation? Let's talk about wild allegations for a moment. Was it not the AG herself who early in her term openly accused staff lawyers of being PNP supporters/sympathizers?


I know as a fact that the AG has been in meetings with some of those who have now resigned or left. How can she feign ignorance of not knowing these members of staff? Is she claiming, for example, that she doesn't know Nicole Lambert, who recently left a senior position in the Chambers? Apart from being untruthful, the AG seems to think it a point of pride to not know who her staff lawyers are. What a great pretence from one who publicly arrogated the right to intervene in personnel matters that are usually left to the Solicitor General.


In the same Observer report, the new Solicitor General has apparently become the AG's spinmeister. He declined to say how many persons had resigned since the AG took office, but "expressed a difficulty in understanding why she was being held liable for the spate of resignations". Is Douglas for real?? According to Douglas, "The Attorney General has nothing to do with it, why are they calling her? She is the political head!" The SG also denied that the resignations had anything to do with the behaviour of his new boss. In this regard, this is what the AG's new spinmeister had to say:


"Let me put an end to that; I took office in May and I had a meeting with the attorney general and we have agreed for a formula going forward which means the office would operate in much the same way it did when Dr Ken Rattray was Solicitor General. [This means] the attorney general would be responsible for policy and advising government and the technical legal office would advise her on the technical legal implications of whatever policy the government is pursuing.
That's the formula we had, that's the formula I intend to abide by and that's the formula which the attorney general has agreed to,"


Now let's see, Douglas. If the AG had already been observing the division of labour between her office and that of the SG, why was it necessary for you to meet and agree on a 'formula' for going forward?? Is it not implicit in your own words that the AG was not following this formula before, and hence the need to re-establish it? If the AG had been religiously following this formula throughout her reign, do you, Douglas, believe that you would've been appointed SG? Had this formula been applied, do you believe that the AG would've had the audacity to derail the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie and procure the dismissal of the PSC? If the AG had behaved like all her predecessors, do you seriously believe that a dozen people or more would've left the Chambers in under a year? Do you believe that Patrick Foster would've resigned a mere months before his contract was scheduled to end, if the AG had always behaved in accordance with this formula? Why would Patrick give up a gratuity if things were so hunky-dory in the Chambers? Who do you think was responsible for rescinding the appointment of Nicole Foster-Pusey as acting Deputy Solicitor General? Patrick? Give me a break, Douglas, neither you nor the AG have a monopoly on intelligence, so stop playing us all as fools.

Douglas Leys also claims that none of the resignees has cited difficulties with Hurricane Dorothy as a reason for leaving. Now let's examine this. If anybody had in fact mentioned this as a reason to Douglas, would he be disclosing this to the press? I think not. In any event, as Douglas well knows, people often don't cite the real reasons for leaving a job. Further, does anybody really need to cite Hurricane Dorothy as a reason when it's so obvious??? Let's get real. We are talking about an AG who, unlike her predecessors, has publicly asserted the right and the authority to interfere with personnel decisions, and indeed operational decisions that are usually within the purview of the SG.

In its front page article of Sunday Herald of June 22, 2008 entitled Government Backtracks, there is the incredible story of Nicole Foster-Pusey being compelled to recant an undertaking not to seek costs against Abe Dabdoub, following his election litigation against Daryl Vaz. I can't help but reproduce the relevant portions below:


There are more indications that political interference could have triggered last week’s sudden resignation of director of litigation at the Attorney General’s Department, Nicole Foster-Pusey.

Based on documentary evidence, Foster-Pusey was recently directed to rescind a commitment she gave to attorneys who represented Abe Dabdoub in the dual citizen trial, that the AG’s Department would not pursue legal costs against their client as ordered by Chief Justice Zeila McCalla.

The Sunday Herald obtained documents indicating that Foster-Pusey received instructions from her immediate boss, Solicitor General, Douglas Leys, to rescind the commitment.

In a letter dated May 21, 2008, Foster-Pusey had informed Gayle Nelson & Company, attorneys for Dabdoub, that the AG’s Department would not be “pursuing the award of costs outlined in the judgement”.

However, two weeks later, in a letter to the said law firm, dated June 5, Foster-Pusey said: “I am advised that at the time I made these arrangements, I had no instructions from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.


“The Solicitor General is awaiting instructions from the Attorney General as to how the government would proceed on this issue.” That gave a clear indication that the changed position had emanated from the Attorney General or higher up the political ladder.

On June 12, Gayle Nelson & Company responded, describing Foster-Pusey’s latter correspondence as “astounding”.

“We are therefore entitled, obliged and compelled to rely on any undertaking or assurance given by you in a matter over which you have conduct, and our client intends to so rely, not only on your statements made before the Chief Justice, but also your letter of 21st May,” the law firm stated.

The letter continued: ”We take this opportunity to point out to you that any withdrawal of your position is to be considered a serious breach of ethics, contrary to the cannons of the profession, and which may very well result in a report to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by our client.”

Foster-Pusey replied on June 16, stating that: “ I can offer no further clarification, but anticipate that as indicated in the June 5 letter, instructions will be issued by the Solicitor General in due course.”

The former director of litigation made it clear that she acted within her powers.
“I wish to make it clear that at the time I stated my position on the issue of costs, it was my understanding that in my capacity…I had the full power and authority to do so without the need of instructions from either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General.”

Over the years, Foster-Pusey added, “I have made many such directions in my capacity as the attorney with conduct of a matter, team leader in the Chambers,...since 2002 and various periods thereafter.”


So, in summary, Nicole Foster-Pusey has been thrown under the bus but both the AG and the SG, for doing nothing more than her job. As director of litigation, why on earth should she require express instructions not to pursue costs? The Dabdoub v Vaz case was not one in which the government was direct/named party. The government appeared as a friend of the court, as I understand it. This makes it even more bizarre that the AG/SG would now expose Mrs. Foster-Pusey to a disciplinary proceedings before the General Legal Council? It's unconscionable. Under such circumstances, what could Nicole Foster-Pusey do other than to resign?


The spectre of the Vasciannie/PSC imbroglio continues to haunt the AG's Department, however the AG and the SG want to pretend that all is well. The main problem is that the public, and indeed the legal profession simply doesn't care enough about what is happening in the Chambers to speak out and demand better from those who claim to serve the public interest.

Read More...

Nicole Foster-Pusey resigns from A-G's Department

Not surprisingly, Nicole Foster-Pusey is leaving the AG's Department. RJR reported the news today (June 17, 2008). She joins more than half a dozen lawyers who have resigned from the AG's Chambers since Dorothy Lightbourne's arrival as AG in September 2007. In any self-respecting country, this spate of resignations would be a scandal. But clearly not in Jamaica, where there has been little or no outrage at a government intent on eviscerating the AG's Chambers for no motive other than petty personality/partisan politics.



I do hope that some of the lawyers will publicly disclose their reasons for leaving. In the RJR report, Nicole Foster-Pusey declined to comment on the reasons for her departure or the departure of any of her colleagues. This might be 'politically correct' while she is still in the Chambers. However, I do think the public interest demands that the departing lawyers disclose exactly what is going on in the AG's Chambers, and not simply run away.

There had been some idle chatter some months ago about an inquiry by the Office of the PM/Cabinet Office into the operations of the AG's Department. Not surprisingly, there have been no further developments on this. To be candid, I can't see the point of having an inquiry, given the obvious cause of the turmoil at the AG's Department. I can't see how the new Solicitor General, Douglas Leys can operate with any measure of efficiency, given the exodus of so many lawyers, particularly those at the middle and senior levels.


I was speaking today with one of my Jamaican lawyer friends who now resides in Europe. He related to me how a very senior lawyer in Jamaica was bemoaning the state of affairs at the AG's Department. I reminded him that this lawyer was one of the many in Jamaica who failed to speak out when Stephen Vasciannie was strong-armed out of the SG post. I now recall that I had personally emailed this particularly senior lawyer to raise her voice in protest. I never had so much as an acknowledgement.

Despite the chaos at the AG's Department, the Jamaican Bar Association and the Advocates Association of Jamaica remain mute. I suppose this should hardly be surprising, given their track record so far. I continue to be concerned about the complete lack of engagement by the Jamaica Civil Service Asssociation. Except for a few peeps out of Wayne Jones in the initial stages of the Vasciannie imbroglio, the JCSA has been conspicuously silent. It's times like this that I wonder, why should I care, if others don't?

Read More...

D.S. Morgan raps Ken Chaplin

I just came across a letter by D.S. Morgan that was published in the Observer yesterday (April 28, 2008) that challenges Ken Chaplin's unfounded claim that there are PNP activists in the Attorney General's Department. The letter was in response to Ken Chaplin's column of April 22, 2008 entitled Budget debate: Davies challenging, Portia emotional.



D.S. Morgan's letter was in relation to the following excerpt of Chaplin's column:

Mrs Simpson Miller spoke strongly about the level of blatant political interference that has taken place with regards to the Public Service Commission, Attorney General's Department and the Solid Waste Management Authority. This position, I believe, presupposes that those who administer these agencies were independent and non-political, but they were not.

The commission, for example, is appointed by the governor general on the recommendation of the prime minister. Four of the five members of the commission were staunch supporters of the PNP, one of whom actively campaigned for the party for the September general election. The commission appointed many of the lawyers who are PNP supporters to the Attorney General's Department. Here she was on weak grounds. Unless there is a breakaway from this contrived political circle in the public service, the country will be in serious trouble.

In a previous post, I had adverted to Chaplin's predisposition for intellectual dishonesty. Again, he baldly asserts that four of the five fired PSC members were PNP supported who appointed PNP lawyers to the AG's Chambers. Ken has unashamedly become a mouthpiece for the JLP, in the process surrendering whatever journalistic integrity might once have been attributed to him. It is curious that Ken Chaplin completely ignores the blatant political interference of the JLP government a few weeks ago in the matter of the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson.

D.S. Morgan was much kinder to Ken Chaplin than I would've been. Neverless,I entirely agree with his sentiments which I reproduce below:

Monday, April 28, 2008

Dear Editor,

I see that columnist Ken Chaplin persists in his view that there are PNP activists in the Attorney General's Department. It would be good if he would let us know who they are, as well as his evidence for viewing them as activists.

If Mr Chaplin can show that someone is indeed an activist, maybe he can enlighten us further as to the ways in which the "activism" has affected their professional performance, since that is implicit in his criticism of the Public Service Commission for making the appointments.

DS Morgan
Kingston 8

Read More...

Commentary on Sunday Gleaner editorial- The PSC and relative morality

The editorial in yesterday's Sunday Gleaner rightly criticized the PM's specious use of 30 year old correspondence between the then PSC (chaired by Prof. Gladstone Mills) and the then Governor General. This correspondence was in relation to Michael Manley's request to the then PSC to resign.

The editorial is the first reference that I have seen in the Jamaican media to the PM's parliamentary reference to the PSC issue. See the editorial at:
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080427/cleisure/cleisure1.html

The editorial captures my own sentiments. However, there was no direct reportage of the text of the letters referred to by the PM. Further, the Sunday Gleaner mysteriously opted not to include any reference to the PM's affidavit in response to the litigation initiated by the fired PSC members. The affidavit makes no reference to these letters, nor is there any indication that the PM had asked the PSC members to resign. I sent an email yesterday to Byron Buckley (the Sunday Gleaner editor)which I have reproduced below:



April 27, 2008

Dear Byron,

I have not had a response to any of my previous emails. However, I do agree with your editorial today on the PM's unprincipled defence of his handling of the PSC issue. A couple things though:

1. As a reader, I would've liked to have seen verbatim excerpts from the letters used by the PM. So far I have seen no reportage by the Gleaner (or any other newspaper) on this. The text of the PM's speech (at the JIS website) only refers to the letters, but not to the quotes themselves. I would be obliged if the Gleaner would consider reproducing the PM's references in full for the benefit of its readers.

2. Once again, I am mystified as the absence of any reference to the PM's affidavit in the editorial. The affidavit has no reference to the "Manley precedent". I would have thought that this might have merited editorial comment. It is legitimate to ask (a) why the PM has applied the Manley precedent to defend his handling of the PSC issue, when he has not done so in defence of the litigation initiated by the dismissed PSC members; (b) why the PM chose to raise this matter at all in parliament just prior to the scheduled hearing of the litigation.

While it is your prerogative to comment on public issues as you see fit, I do believe that you have concomitant obligation to do so in the context of a full disclosure of all the relevant facts/issues at hand.

Best regards,

Hilaire

Read More...

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...

PM mentions PSC issue during his budget presentation

For reasons best known to the Prime Minister, he elected to mention the controversial replacement of the PSC. I understand that he quoted from some 1976 correspondence by previous Public Service Commissioners. I gather he was attempting to establish that previous Public Service Commissioners had resigned at the request of former PM Michael Manley. Here is the relevant extract from Golding's presentation:




Public Service Commission

The Leader of the Opposition has made some trenchant statements about the replacement of the PSC. That matter is the subject of a challenge in the Supreme Court and, therefore, I will refrain from commenting on the specific charges she has made.
But it may be of interest for me to quote from two letters written to a former Governor-General by members of previous Public Service Commissions.

The actual quotes from the letters are not included in the written presentation, but I am hoping that they are available in the daily newspapers tomorrow.

The Prime Minister appears to be echoing some of his 'surrogates' like Ken Jones and Ken Chaplin, who have previously cited the supposed resignation of previous Public Service Commissioners (at the request of a PM) as if this somehow is relevant to, or supportive of PM Golding's dismissal of the Daisy Coke PSC. Golding never asked the PSC to resign, and indeed initially expressed confidence in the PSC. Why is it that PM chose to mention this issue in the context of a budget debate when the matter is before the courts, as he himself acknowledged?

More anon.

Read More...

Review of the AG's Chambers: The Gleaner says good move, but is it?

Today, the Gleaner had a short editorial applauding a proposed review of the operations of the Attorney General's Chambers (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080408/cleisure/cleisure2.html)

The editorial is set out below:




Dorothy Lightbourne has been the revelation of Bruce Golding's Cabinet - but not in a positive way. As an opposition member of the Senate, we used to consider her constructive and and hoped she would bring a thoughtful expansiveness to a ministerial portfolio. By most reports, as attorney general, Ms Lightbourne has been narrowly partisan, looking into ever crevice for political opponents and evidence of disloyalty.

Her attitude is reported to have created deep tension and concern at the AG's chambers, from which a number of lawyers have sought to escape, to a point, as is now reported, Mr Golding has asked for a review of the operations.

If indeed such an investigation is under way, we believe it is incumbent on Mr Golding to inform the public of its scope and full terms of reference. Any such review should also include an assessment of what role Mr Golding's move to prevent Professor Stephen Vasciannie being appointed solicitor general played in creating creating employee disquiet at the AG's chambers.

While I understand and indeed support the sentiment of the editorial, I do think the Gleaner has missed a couple of fundamental points. Firstly, having identified Dorothy Lightbourne as the main culprit behind the turmoil at the AG's Chambers, what would be the point of a review? Secondly, if the review is commissioned by the PM, what would reason is there for assuming that the review would be anything but a whitewash of the AG's conduct? Almost two weeks ago, I alerted a senior editor at the Gleaner about the affidavits of the PM and AG. The Gleaner has failed to either report on the affidavits or use them to shape their editorial position. I find it curious to say the least.

I sent some feedback to Colin Steer, Associate Editor of the Gleaner, which I set out below (edited):


Dear Colin,

I applaud the sentiment behind your editorial today entitled "Good move at AG's Office". I think you have quite correctly characterized Dorothy Lightbourne as partisan and indeed disruptive. Having said that, I am not certain why or how you inferred that the reported review commissioned by the PM has anything to do with the AG's behaviour, or more particularly, the consequences of her behaviour. It would seem to me that the AG has at all times had the imprimatur of the PM. I would refer you to the affidavits of both the PM and the AG in response to the litigation initiated by Daisy Coke et al, as supporting this proposition. The turmoil at the AG's Department is coincides with Dorothy Lightbourne's tenure. It seems to me that a review is hardly necessary to diagnose, much less eliminate the cause of such turmoil.

While I agree with you that the PM should inform the public on the scope and terms of reference of the review, I had hardly see that the PM would include an assessment of his own role in the Vasciannie fiasco. Again, I refer you to the PM's affidavit which clearly justifies his own role in derailing the selection of Prof. Vasciannie and firing the PSC when it failed to accede to his wishes. It seems to me that a review emanating from the PM's office is hardly likely to do more than whitewash the turmoil currently pervading the AG's Chambers, and the roles of the PM and AG in creating it. I am somewhat surprised that the Gleaner has so far opted not to publicize the affidavits of the PM and AG and/or utilize the information therein to shape your editorial position of today. I imagine that you may have your reasons for taking this approach, but frankly, I do not think it serves the public interest.

Best regards,

Hilaire

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 other Jamaican newspapers follow suit

I gather that the Daily Gleaner and the Sunday Herald have followed the Jamaica Observer in distancing itself from James W. Smith's letter regarding the cancellation of the acting appointments of Nicole Pusey-Foster and Lackston Robinson. I cannot believe that every major paper in Jamaica opted to accept the word of Amb. Donald Rainford without question or investigation. The abject cowardice of the media apparently knows no bounds.

In fairness to the Observer, I have heard from one of the editors who has taken the point that the Observer should not have issued a disclaimer in light of the clear evidence available that demonstrates approval for the acting appointments was given and then withdrawn.

Some have suggested that the Amb. Rainford should be taken as saying that the acting appointments were made by the Chief Personnel Officer without the express authorization of the new PSC. However, in the disclaimer by the Observer (which I assume was replicated by the other newspapers), it is clear that Amb. Rainford's position is that no recommendations for the acting appointments were ever made, much less approved or disapproved. This simply does not square with the evidence. When I appeared on Nationwide News Network last week, Emily and Naomi were trying to push the idea of the CPO going on a frolic of her own, as if to imply that she requires express authorization for every personnel decision she makes in the name of the PSC.

Given the posturing of the Attorney General, and her clear intent to micro-manage personnel decisions in the AG's Chambers, I am all the more astonished by the media's handling of this issue. It's a damn disgrace.

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...

Affidavits of Bruce Golding and Dorothy Lightbourne

Bruce Golding and Dorothy Lighbourne have filed affidavits in response to the application for judicial review initiated by Daisy Coke, et al. The affidavits are dated March 12, 2008. I have posted the affidavits under "PSC litigation documents" (see sidebar).

Bruce Golding's affidavit can also be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2361819/Affidavit-of-Bruce-Golding.

Dorothy Lightbourne's affidavit can also be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2361817/Affidavit-of-Dorothy-Lightbourne.

Both affidavits make for interesting, but disturbing reading. Neither the AG nor the PM appear to have even the most rudimentary grasp of the rule of law or the respective roles of the political directorate and the Public Service Commission. The constitutional reform champ and his AG both operate on the assumption that the PSC operates to follow their dictates instead of the constitution of Jamaica.


The Attorney General denies that she ever said to Daisy Coke that the only person she was prepared to work with was Douglas Leys. However, this is exactly what the AG told me when I spoke with her by phone on or about October 31, 2008. Both affidavits have focused a lot of attention on the PSC's apparent bias against Douglas Leys. Assuming that the PSC's process was vitiated by bias or some other defiency, wouldn't this be unfair to all of the candidates, and not just Douglas Leys? Surely, it would not be fair to either Stephen Vasciannie or Patrick Foster if their candidacies were evaluated and decided in a process that was substantively or procedurally flawed. However, it is clear that neither the AG nor the PM were concerned about the principle of fairness per se, as opposed to strong-arming the PSC into withdrawing its selection of Stephen Vasciannie in favour of Douglas Leys. It is quite clear, from the tenor of the affidavits, that had the PSC simply acceded to the AG's wishes, the PSC would not have been fired for 'misbehaviour'.

The AG's affidavit repeats her public objection to Stephen Vasciannie on the basis of his supposed lack of litigation experience. It seems to me that if litigation experience was the premier qualification for the job of Solicitor General, then surely Patrick Foster would've been a better choice than Douglas. While both are experienced litigators, Patrick has litigation experience at both the public and private bars, while Douglas; experience has been at the public bar only. The AG still has not grasped the role and function of the Solicitor General. As I have said before, the Solicitor General's primary role is that of an adviser/administrator, not that of a litigator. Litigation is simply one of five areas in the AG's Chambers, and certainly is not the dominant area of activity in the Chambers. Quite fatuously, the AG dismissed concerns expressed by the PSC about Douglas' interpersonal skills, stating that she wasn't interested in his "social skills", but "required a functioning Solicitor General". In which galaxy does the the AG think that interpersonal skills are unimportant in the management of lawyers?? Given her own record of alienating members of her Chambers, it is quite clear what little premium she places on getting along with her colleagues.


One of the more bizarre elements of the AG's affidavit is that this is the first time that I have ever heard a public functionary invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation in response to a claim of abuse of power!! Legitimate expectation is a well-known doctrine in administrative law. It was this doctrine that Lackston Robinson invoked when he challenged his non-appointment as Deputy Solicitor General after acting in the post for a year. Essentially he claimed that he had a legitimate expectation (as opposed to a substantive right) of being appointed to the post, having acted. This claim was eventually dismissed. In short, legitimate expectation is only invoked by persons who are challenging an adverse decision by a public functionary. I have never seen it invoked as a defence by a public functionary to a claim of abuse of power.

In administrative law, public functionaries/bodies have a duty to be fair in making decisions, particularly where those decisions may adversely affect the rights or interests of others. Where a public authority has given a promise or representation to a person that a particular practice (or pattern of decision-making) will continue, administrative law recognizes that in those circumstances, a legitimate expectation may reasonably arise on the part of an interested or affected party that the practice or pattern of the public authority will continue until and unless the public authority first signals otherwise. The concept of legitimate expectation connotes the idea of inculcating an expectation in the citizen by a public authoriy that a rule, policy, practice,or scheme will continue. In this context, the citizen has a legitimate expectation that he/she will enjoy benefits of such rule, policy, or scheme, and will not be deprived thereof unless there is some overriding public interest,or that the public authority has signalled an end to a relevant rule, policy, practice, or scheme. The idea is that a person may be unfairly prejudiced by an adverse decision by a public authority when the public authority has previously represented (expressly or impliedly) that it would do otherwise. However, as indicated before, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is may only be invoked by ordinary citizens who may consider that they have been treated unfairly by a public authority. It does not apply to public functionaries like the AG and the PM, and certainly not as a defence to their own administrative malfeasance.

In this case, both the AG and the PM have relied on the legitimate expectation that the PSC would not have selected a candidate as SG without first consulting with them. The AG bases this on some assurance allegedly offered by Daisy Coke that "I could not recommend someone with whom you could not work."

I simply do not buy the AG's story that Daisy Coke gave her any such assurances. Firstly, as an experienced member of the PSC, I can hardly see Daisy Coke essentially agreeing to surrender the PSC's discretion to the AG. Secondly, Daisy Coke would hardly have been in a position to bind the PSC with respect to such an assurance, even if it had been given. Thirdly, as a matter of law, the PSC was never obliged to consult the AG or the PM; as such,any consultation could only reasonably be construed as a courtesy, but certainly not a command. Such assurance, even if had been given, could never be binding as a matter of law. This is rudimentary adminstrative law. Why is the AG pretending not to know this? Then again, maybe she doesn't!

This nonsense argument betrays a pathetic effort by the AG and PM to sanctify their outrageous assault on the rule of law.

Both the AG and the PM treat this supposed failure of the PSC to consult with them, as if it were some fatal breach of the law. Ironically, they assail the perfectly lawful participation of John Leiba and Carlton Davies in the deliberations of the PSC. I can see the lawyers for the PSC having a field day cross-examining the AG and PM on this issue! I wonder if it has occurred to either the AG or the PM, that had the PSC acceded to their wishes, that the PSC would then be in palpable breach of the law.

I find it mind-blowing that Bruce Golding considers his meeting with the PSC on Oct. 31 as the equivalent of a hearing!! He compounds this fatuity by claiming that he subsequently 'discovered' that Pauline Findlay previously had a relationship with Michael Hylton, which supposedly compounded the "appearance of bias". Even if he could pretend that the meeting on Oct 31 was a "hearing", where was the hearing on this issue?? For there to be even a pretence of a hearing, he would've been obliged to at least call on Pauline Findlay for her side of the story, which he clearly didn't. It's incredible that Bruce Golding has the audacity to claim that all the Commissioners had ample opportunity to respond, when at no time did he formally request any of them to show cause why they shouldn't be removed for misbehaviour, much less provide particulars of the alleged misbehaviour.

The PM claims in his affidavit that Alfred Sangster offered to resign during the Oct 31 meeting with the PSC. If this were so, why didn't Sangster say this when he publicly distanced himself from his erstwhile colleagues? I have little doubt that this so-called offer of resignation is nothing more than a figment of the PM's imagination. Interestingly, the PM has not explained in his affidavit why he fired Sangster, when Sangster wasn't part of the panel that interviewed the candidates for Solicitor General, nor was he a member of the PSC when Justice Jones ruled against the PSC on the retirement of Lackston Robinson in the public interest. Again, I can see lots of cross-examination material for the lawyers representing Daisy Coke, et al.

Dorothy Lightbourne states in her affidavit (paragraph 3) that "Professor Stephen Vasciannie was a part time officer contracted to the former
Attorney General, the Hon. A.J. Nicholson, to deal with international matters and
was later made a supernumery (sic)".

This is complete crock. AJ did not, and could not have contracted Stephen Vasciannie.
Stephen was recruited as a Consultant in the Attorney General's Chambers at the level of Deputy Solicitor General, with primary responsibility as Head of the International Division of the Chambers. Stephen reported to the Solicitor General (Mike Hylton) and not directly to AJ. The AG is clearly trying to create the impression that Stephen was a political appointee, working directly for AJ, which is not true.

After a year as "Consultant", both Stephen's title was changed to "Deputy Solicitor General"; but with no change in functions. In this context, Lightbourne's reference to supernumerary is also misleading because it does not say supernumerary at what level; the level was that of Deputy Solicitor General. In effect, Stephen worked as a Deputy Solicitor General (with that title) for four years. The AG appears to have deliberately obscured or distorted the facts on this issue. Obviously, Stephen's employment record with the AG's Chambers would not only be documented, but the AG herself would have direct access to this record.

One can only infer that the AG fully intended to smear Stephen Vasciannie as a partisan functionary operating at the behest of the previous PNP Attorney General, and by extension, the PNP iself. This is consonant with her unsubstantiated belief that under the PNP regime, the AG's Chambers had been taken over or had become dominated by 'PNP' lawyers. While the AG claims that her principal objection to Stephen Vasciannie's selection as SG was on account of his purported lack of litigation experience, her deliberate mischaracterization of his employment status strongly implies that she simply saw him as a PNP operative who needed to be eliminated. As I have said before in other commentaries, there is little doubt as to the partisan agenda of the AG in her approach to the AG's Chambers. This most recent evidence of this is the obstruction of Nicole Foster-Pusey's appointment as acting Deputy Solicitor General.

The affidavits of the PM and AG have a number of exhibits, including the correspondence between the PM and the Leader of the Opposition that preceded the formal dismissal of the PSC members by the Governor General. What is obvious from the correspondence is that the PM had not intention of addressing, much less taking into account any of the legitimate concerns expressed by the Opposition Leader. I remain amazed that the PM, with his reservoir of political experience has handled this issue so ineptly, with no vision other than short term partisan gain. The vision for Jamaica that he so eloquently articulated on September 11, 2007, continues to be betrayed.

Read More...