Andrew Holness can't be trusted
THE EDITOR, Sir:
The judgment in the Arthur Williams v Andrew Holness case makes for interesting reading. There are a number of paragraphs in the Judgment which are worthy of comment. In this letter I only wish to mention two.
First, Paragraph 140, in which the judge said, "I find that the express indication to the defendant of the claimant's disagreement to resign at that time was a clear and unequivocal communication to the defendant that the claimant was not agreeing to the use of the pre-signed letters to effect his resignation at that time."
Second, Paragraph 143, in which the judge said, "In actuality, then, the letter of resignation delivered to the governor general was not issued under the hand of the claimant or by the defendant with the concurrence of the claimant and on his authority but by the defendant in the exercise of his sole and absolute discretion against the wishes of the claimant."
This is alarming. The opposition leader's action in view of these findings by the judge is clearly high-handed, dictatorial and vindictive, no doubt as a result of being buoyed by the victory in his party leadership election that made him think that he was king of the party and ruler of the roost.
If these are his actions in Opposition having won a leadership election in his party, I shudder to think what his actions would be if Andrew Holness were given the powers of prime minister by the people of Jamaica.
Jamaicans need to think carefully about entrusting power into the hands of someone like Andrew Holness.