THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE FINAL squalid page of the Jamaica Labour Party's participation in the West Kingston Enquiry has now been written, and, to no one's surprise they have opted to withdraw permanently from the Enquiry.
They had pretended at first that it was a legal point - the power to restrict cross-examination in an Enquiry - which they were concerned about: and so they approached the Courts: After two thumping defeats, they have frankly taken off the disguise and now it is clear that they never intended to participate in good faith: They, as some persons had predicted, intended to discredit and sabotage the Commission, and then, to create a situation which would justify withdrawal.
However, now, they are not even going to pursue their legal right of appeal, because they know how legally hopeless it is. What does all this tell us? First, that we are dealing with totally unacceptable and monstrous behaviour. The Opposition Leader seeks to cover himself with a threadbare legal cloak - that is, it is the lawyers, not he, who have taken the decision. As to the lawyers - what can one say? Has it not always been the glory of Counsel to do cases before a Court or tribunal and to triumph even under adverse conditions? When since this strategy of withdrawal to the sidelines of irresponsibility in order to take pot-shots at serious participants? The stones they throw are reminiscent of the Palestinian 'intifada'; but then again, why should we follow a Middle Eastern precedent?
But the saddest part of all that has transpired is the unjustified and shabby treatment of the Honourable Julius Isaac. Here now, if there is anything like collective guilt, that is, guilt foisted on a majority by a minority, this is it. Justice Isaac has had a distinguished career in Canada rising to be Federal Chief Justice for the period 1991 to 1999 when he retired. So valued were his services and reputation that he was then appointed as a supernumerary judge of the Court of Appeal.
The 'Tobias' case (see 1997 3 SCR p. 391) on which the Justice's detractors have descended like a swarm of crows, concerned an administrative matter, not an adjudicative matter. It is essential to understand that what was at stake was not the integrity of the Honourable Julius Isaac by any allegation that he was in any way interfering in the merits of a case, but an issue of the scheduling of a case (the date of hearing).
The concern was to eliminate delays which is a common judicial problem everywhere. It was particularly important in the 'Tobias' case because the Federal Courts are the work-horse of the Canadian justice system having both trial and appellate jurisdiction.
Hence it was undesirable that delays should cause first instance matters to by-pass the Federal Court and go directly to the Canadian Supreme Court on a reference. However, the Supreme Court of Canada felt that though the Chief Justice had every right to be concerned about delays and to do something about it, it was inappropriate that he should consider it from the point of view of avoiding a reference to the Supreme Court. This, it was held, trespassed on the perception of judicial independence and gave the wrong impression to actions which by themselves would have been otherwise correct, indeed obligatory.
It is further essential to note that the Supreme Court expressly held that there was no bad faith involved on the part of either the Chief Justice or the Assistant Deputy Attorney General: further the Honourable Justice Isaac remained as Chief Justice for another two years until his retirement in 1999. This therefore confounds the critics who were hinting that he was asked to leave as a result of the same 'Tobias' case that was decided in 1997.
But what I find so dishonest really is that when Lord Hoffman of the Privy Council, the same Privy Council that so many people want retained, actually sat and determined a case in which he had an interest as a Director of Amnesty (that is the Pinochet case), there was not one peep from all our righteous protectors of the integrity of the judicial process. And, indeed, Lord Hoffman instead of stepping down, is now writing most of the recent judgments of that august body, the Privy Council. It would be interesting, were he brought from England to sit here as chairman of the West Kingston Enquiry, to see what comments our critics would dare to make.
But to me, the ultimate disappointment is the easy way that politics polarises our people; the easy way it divides relatives from each other, and friend from friend. I ask: what does it profit a man if he should become a Minister or a Prime Minister, or indeed gain the whole world, if he should lose his own soul?
Jamaica now stands again at a cross-roads, racked by indecision; but still with time left to call upon its latent strength and integrity.
I am, etc.,
IAN RAMSAY, Q.C.
Attorney-at-law
53 Church Street, Kingston
