Letters

The Editor, Sir:

Some readers might regard the article 'Caught', on the front page of The Sunday Gleaner, August 22, as revealing or presenting new information. For others, it might be belated news because prior to that the country was made aware that the Solicitor General of Jamaica had communicated with Manatt.

Previously, the media had treated the Manatt issue in a manner to suggest that the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) had contracted with the US law firm. It is not clear whether The Sunday Gleaner has retreated from that position or whether it is vindicating itself by the presentation of excerpts from email correspondence between Manatt and the Solicitor General who is the GOJ senior legal adviser. However, its latest assertion is that the Manatt/Leys correspondence "confirms that the United States law firm was working on behalf of the Golding-led Government of Jamaica, even if it had been engaged by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP)". It is a dubious assertion, particularly the request for readers to disregard the involvement of the JLP.

The Prime Minister had confirmed that as leader of the JLP he had sanctioned the appointment of Brady's law firm to use its international connections to seek assistance with a view to finding a solution to a dispute arising under the extradition treaty between the governments of the United States and Jamaica. For that purpose, Brady retained the services of Manatt as the agent of his law firm. To date, that is the only written contract produced in the entire saga.

Manatt, we have been told, is a big American law firm. It would be absurd to think that they would have contracted with the GOJ without a properly executed contract in place. Consequently, it is not difficult to place Manatt's role in perspective.

Analogous role

Manatt's role seems to be analogous to a tradesman who had been contracted by a construction firm retained to do some work on Jamaica House. Lawyers would tell us that although the tradesman had worked on a property/project owned by the GOJ, it did not constitute a contract between the tradesman and the GOJ nor would it be supportive of the argument that the tradesman "was working on behalf of the Golding-led Government of Jamaica ..." That is to say that correspondence between Manatt and the Solicitor General did not necessarily or automatically change the status quo of the parties.

Interestingly, the US Department of Justice did not recognise Manatt as representing the GOJ. The Sunday Gleaner states: " ... Manatt official Kevin Di Gregory wrote to Leys indicating that the US Department of Justice wanted any discussion to be with a Jamaican government official".

Manatt, obviously would need information to discharge its obligation to Brady's. Information for which the likely custodian was the Solicitor General. There have been instances, according to The Sunday Gleaner, where Brady had been running forward and backward in gathering and furnishing information. Apparently, the tedious task of Manatt to Brady, Brady to the JLP, the JLP to the GOJ/Solicitor General in gathering the information and reversing the motion in furnishing the information, was circumvented by linking up Manatt and the Solicitor General. To suggest that the linking up amounts to 'conduct' and, therefore, changes or creates new contractual relationship would be absurd. Manatt's services were retained and paid for by Brady's.

Final comment

My final comment is on The Sunday Gleaner's charge that "the claim by Manatt that it had not been engaged to address the extradition request involving Christopher 'Dudus' Coke was not true". Given all that have been said and known, to take such a position would be oversimplifying a much complex matter.

One would conclude that The Sunday Gleaner had not brought anything new. It is belated news. Although he has been on record as saying that he was guided by precedence, the PM had expressed bad judgement on his part for having the JLP involved and offered his apology to the nation. It is time for us to put to rest the 'politics of the Manatt controversy' and move on to a productive subject such as the economy and reduction of crime. These matters have been languishing for our undivided attention.

I am etc.,

Lionel Russell

Ensom City

St Catherine