‘Vindicated’

Jamaica-born retired American special agent Wilfred Rattigan provided no “authority” from any Jamaican in the diaspora to file his failed lawsuit against Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith, a High Court judge has ruled.

Justice Dale Staple invoked the words of the hit song Deportee by Jamaica’s Grammy-winning musician Buju Banton as he dismissed Rattigan’s lawsuit related to a multimillion-dollar corporate donation to Johnson Smith’s failed bid for the post of Commonwealth Secretary General.

“The diaspora is a vast body of people spread over nearly every continent in the world. Yet there is not one line, letter, or 50c stamp from anyone giving him authority to represent them,” Staple wrote in his 23-page judgment.

However, he said, even if Rattigan – a former FBI special agent who was born in Waterhouse, St Andrew – had the legal standing to file the lawsuit, “there are not sufficient grounds upon which to bring the claim”.

Said Staple,” There is simply, in my view, no evidence of the breaches the claimant is asking the court to find that the respondents committed.”

Banking executive Keith Duncan and Jamaican conglomerates GraceKennedy and Musson Group contributed to the payment of US$99,000 or J$15 million to the American firm, Finn Partners, for public-relations services provided to Johnson Smith’s Commonwealth Secretary General campaign, Information Minister Robert Morgan disclosed last September.

A filing on May 1 this year by Finn Partners under the United States’ Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) revealed that four other companies – Sandals Resorts International, Jamaica National Group Limited, AIC Barbados Limited, and Barita Investments Limited – made donations.

Rattigan’s lawsuit sought a declaration that both Johnson Smith and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade failed to comply with the law and a directive by the finance ministry that required them to report the donation as a gift.

It was filed in April this year after Rattigan waited months for the finance ministry to respond to an Access to Information (ATI) request for details about the payment, including the related gift acceptance form and due-diligence report detailing the source of the funds, he told this newspaper.

“The evidence presented shows that the first respondent (Johnson Smith) was not acting as a private individual in her candidacy for secretary general. The principal actor there was the Government of Jamaica, who put her forward as its candidate,” Staple found.

“So the monies would have been given to the Government of Jamaica, for the benefit, not of the first respondent in a private or personal capacity, but of the Government of Jamaica so they could field her as their candidate.”

Johnson Smith said she felt vindicated by the court’s decision and expressed gratitude to members of the public who she said have shown “unwavering support and belief in my integrity during this period”.

“This ruling vindicates my integrity as I have always maintained my innocence, and the court’s decision reflects the truth that I have upheld from the beginning – that the case was baseless and unfounded,” she said in a statement.

Rattigan has vowed to challenge the ruling before the Court of Appeal.

“I am supremely confident that this judgment will be overruled on appeal because the facts and the law speak for themselves,” he said during an interview with The Gleaner after the ruling.

“The judge erred, the judge made a mistake,” said Rattigan, who was granted permission to appeal the ruling within 14 days.

The retired special agent noted that he had not seen Staple’s written decision but predicted that the ruling that he does not have legal standing or sufficient interest to bring the lawsuit will have “a tremendous impact” on the diaspora community.

“It is saying to us, send us your money, but don’t interfere in what’s going on in Jamaica regarding politicians and politics … just stay out of it,” he reasoned.

“All we are trying to do is to hold politicians accountable, and my lawsuit was not asking the judge to punish her. It was simply asking the judge to recognise that she did not file, and she should have.”

However, Staple cited Rule 21.1 of the court’s Civil Procedure Rules, which clearly states that representative claims can be made by one person for a group of at least five persons with an interest in the matter.

“When the rules say an interest, it means a legal and justiciable interest, that is, they have been or are likely to be personally affected by the outcome of the case,” he explained.

“It is interesting to note that the claimant [Rattigan] has only said that he has a legitimate interest to bring this claim as a Jamaican. He has not elaborated on what special damage he has suffered or will suffer as a consequence of any of the alleged breaches by the respondents.”

The judge said while Rattigan may wish to know information surrounding the money to fund Johnson Smith’s campaign for Commonwealth secretary general, he has not demonstrated that he has any legal interest to ground the lawsuit.

“No specific right of his to any specific, identifiable, substantive relief to which he was entitled has been asserted.”

Staple noted that the relief sought by Rattigan in paragraphs three, four, and five of his claim are related to the Integrity Commission and Tax Administration Jamaica - agencies that have their own statutory mechanisms to receive, investigate, and prosecute complaints for alleged breaches by citizens and or government agencies.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com