Peter Espeut | Half-measures not enough

It is hard to muster much sympathy for a government that responds to serious concerns with half-measures. A week ago Jamaica’s Constitutional Court struck down an amendment to the nation’s highest law rushed through the lower house in a day, without prior consultation with the Opposition, and without any public discussion. In what many see as an abuse of power, the government used its huge majority in the lower house to ram through what the court has judged to be bad law.

A lot seems to be at stake. Rushing and ramming through constitutional amendments doesn’t look good, and will inevitably provoke criticism. The issue is important enough for the government to be prepared to lose face and to waste political capital.

The intention was to grant the director of public prosecutions (DPP) – past retirement age – a second extension of her tenure without the agreement of the Opposition. I hesitate to speculate on why the government is going to such great lengths to keep the incumbent in office, but suffice it to say that the result of the decision of the Constitutional Court is that the amendment to the Constitution last year giving the incumbent the power to elect to remain on the job was null and void and of no legal effect, and therefore that the post of DPP is vacant.

In Westminster, could the government’s legal advisers survive that?

But neither the DPP nor the government has accepted the judgment. The DPP has declined to vacate her post. Last Sunday the DPP declared that she was stepping away from her post because she was “unable to carry out the functions of her office at this time”. Presumably she believes that there will come a time when she will be able to resume her functions.

In the meantime, three days ago the government filed an appeal against the judgment of the Constitutional Court. Enough is at stake for the government to persevere in its effort to keep the incumbent in her post, despite the risk of losing the appeal, and the accompanying embarrassment. What’s up?

SPEAKER WRONG AND STRONG

For months House Speaker Juliet Holness has stood firm on principle that she would neither automatically table in Parliament reports of the Integrity Commission and the Auditor General of Jamaica, nor make public the legal opinion of the Attorney General of Jamaica on whether such reports must be immediately tabled. The grounds for the latter were what she alleged was “attorney-client privilege”, yet the Speaker released the legal opinion of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel which supported her action; presumably she sees no “attorney-client privilege” between the Parliamentary Speaker and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

The public pushback against the Speaker’s actions in the campaign period before the local government elections cost the government credibility and votes. But maybe they felt that the release of the documents would cost even more votes!

The withheld reports of the Auditor General were released after the elections, and contained allegations of irregularities by government bodies connected with the Ministry of Finance. The withheld legal opinion of the Attorney General supported the immediate tabling of certain reports, like the ones withheld. The Speaker was shown to be wrong and strong!

Did the Speaker bring the House into disrepute with her ruling on November 7, 2023 withholding the reports? Should there be an apology? And should she step down? In Westminster, would she have survived?

CREDIBILITY

And what now of the credibility of the legal advice coming from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel?

On March 22, with the attorney general’s legal opinion in hand, the House Speaker wrote a letter of reprimand to the Clerk of the Houses of Parliament, accusing her of breaching the Speaker’s ruling of November 7, 2023; “your failure to adhere to the said ruling and applicable procedures, amount to gross dereliction of duty and as such, has brought the institution into disrepute”. The letter was circulated to all the members of parliament, and there was a directive that the letter of reprimand was to be placed on the clerk’s personnel file.

I do not know Valrie Curtis, but I know that she is an attorney-at-law, with almost 30 years experience serving the houses of parliament. The new House Speaker is an accountant, not a lawyer. I wonder whether this is a case where someone is asked to follow a course of action which they believe is not in accord with the law?

With the attorney general’s legal opinion now public, why has the letter of reprimand not been withdrawn? The Speaker gave instructions for the letter to be placed on the clerk’s personnel file, but the government claims it has not been so placed. Why has someone not been reprimanded for disregarding the directive of the Speaker?

Last Tuesday sugary compliments were paid in Parliament to Valrie Curtis as she retires as Clerk to the Houses of Parliament, while this unjust and improper letter of reprimand has not been withdrawn. Speaker Holness said:

“Our differences in perspective on a particular administrative matter and the resulting procedural communication to her, which was never placed on her HR record, but which has unfortunately been circulated in the public domain, was never intended to detract from her years of service and valuable contribution to the Parliament.”

Who circulated it in the public domain?

When you make a mistake, admit it, apologise, and make amends. People are watching and will draw their own conclusions – about the powerful oppressing their subordinates.

WHERE IS THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION?

A lot has happened in central government in the last week, and the public has a lot of questions. Where is the minister of information when we really need him? Is he still drawing his salary?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com