Letter of the Day | Rage manufactured, but by whom?

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to The Gleaner news story of June 3, which reported that the government spokesperson is unquestionably correct concerning the existence of a ‘rage’ in the society. Senator Fitz-Henley is however horrifyingly wrong as to where and by whom it was ‘manufactured’.

The rage was manufactured with the use of two tools, both of which were firmly in the control of the government.

The first is the appointment of Dennis Chung – who has not denied making public statements revealing bias in favour of the prime minister’s financials which have been queried by the Integrity Commission - to oversee the making of findings in respect of that same query.

The second tool consists of an unanswered insistence that the original required set of qualifications for the appointment was altered to suit Mr. Chung’s credentials.

The expanding rage that ensued was therefore manufactured in the innermost sanctum of the government.

The toxic nature of those tools, moreover used in combination, sends a frighteningly dangerous governance signal that would cause a rage in every country where the rule of law is respected, and democratic practices embraced.

There are three legal advisers within the executive: the attorney general, the justice minister, and the minister of legal and constitutional affairs. The question to the three, therefore, is:

Since this rage challenges cornerstone elements on which our legal system is erected, touching, as it does, upon issues of natural justice: conflict of interest; a judge in his own cause; implied motive, among others, is it not reasonable to expect that the senator’s misguided assertion of this rage having been manufactured by the Opposition would have been dutifully debunked by them?

Surely, the foundation legal doctrine that early came to our attention that ‘justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’ lives with us as a common-sense rule and as a dominant guardrail principle.

Should the legal advisers to the Government remain silent, there could be no preventing reasonable inferences from being drawn which, by every measure, would be adverse to them, and most regrettably, as Dr Peter Phillips has observed, forcefully, unfavourable also to Jamaica.

The disdainful approach to justice and constitutional matters employed by this Holness administration has rendered it having the worst record of any government in Independent Jamaica.

Accountability for that record must rest largely with the legal advisers. That is nothing less than an outrage; they have much to answer for.

By what justification should the way be paved for such a shocking record to be extended?

CLAYTON MORGAN

Attorney-at-Law