HAD IT not been for the passing of the late great advocate Ian Ramsay, O.J. the exchange of letters between himself and Chief Commissioner for the West Kingston Commission of Enquiry, Justice Julius Isaac, may not have come to light. Indeed it was Mr. Ramsay's terminal illness which prompted Justice Isaac to write.
There was sharp disagreement between both men on the very last day of the Enquiry when the Chief Commissioner ruled against Mr. Ramsay's request to read his written final argument to the Commission as attorney for the police. In a more terminal sense this was to be Mr. Ramsay's final argument in a major case as he was then ill with pancreatic cancer.
Justice Isaac in his letter acknowledged the brilliance of Mr. Ramsay's advocacy along with his associate Mrs. Samuels-Brown, which "were of such a high quality as to set you both apart from other counsel who appeared before me." That brilliance, elegance, and soundness of advocacy had already earned Ian Ramsay the distinction of being appointed the youngest ever Jamaican Queen's Counsel.
The Commission and Justice Isaac himself have been widely lambasted and vilified in true Jamaican style. It is the gentlemanly graciousness of the exchange of letters between the Chief Commissioner and the dying advocate for the police which has caught our attention. Such graciousness and expressions of mutual admiration can be publicly contrived in the face of impending death and in eulogies, but we have the distinct impression that two gentlemen have quietly transcended disagreements to recognise the best in each other.
Ian Ramsay, with whom we are more familiar, has a distinguished track record of high integrity in the legal profession and in private life. His non-negotiable principles led him to give up the first Q.C., having earlier withdrawn from political engagement in a system which to him would require the sacrifice of principle.
At all levels Jamaican life is exceptionally rough and coarse. We seek to demolish opponents not with better arguments delivered in a civil manner but with innuendoes, personal attacks and often violence. These negative qualities so evident in public and political life have prompted disengagement by many who like the talented Ian Ramsay could offer so much in public service. Withdrawal, of course, leaves the field more and more in the hands of those willing and able to play the dirty, knock-down, knock-out game.
The Isaac-Ramsay exchange, which we moved from the private domain to the public in The Sunday Gleaner (August 11), speaks of a better way. The election rivals of the current season would do well to take note.
