Tweet
Say something, Mr Prime Minister
published: Tuesday | December 4, 2007
Vernon Daley
Based on news reports carried over the past few weeks there seems to be a stand-off between Prime Minister Bruce Golding and the Public Service Commission over the appointment of a new Solicitor General.
Apparently, the Commission's recommendation of Deputy Solicitor General Professor Stephen Vasciannie for the job, has not found favour with the Government.
We have heard that the Prime Minister has written to the Governor General, advising him to dissolve the Commission for what is said to be misbehaviour on the part of its members. What constitutes this misbehaviour, we have not been told.
The whole business has left the country wrapped in wild speculation because up to now we have not had a full statement from the Government on the matter. The Gleaner last week quoted Golding as saying he has "serious concerns about certain conflicts of interest in the whole process of selection that were not properly dealt with".
Personal animosity
Such a cryptic pronouncement from the Prime Minister is hardly enough to settle the concerns some people have about the way this issue is being handled. It certainly doesn't dispel the view that has taken root out there that the opposition to Professor Vasciannie is based on personal animosity between himself and Golding stemming from their time together in the now near-dead National Democratic Movement.
The Prime Minister needs to say something on the controversy urgently. It cannot be allowed to fester in this way. People have a right to know what their chief servant is doing about matters of state. There may be legitimate reasons for the Government's opposition to Professor Vasciannie and, indeed, the Public Service Commission, but the public can only make that assessment if the Prime Minister comes out and puts it all on the table.
The silence of the administration is giving the impression that it isn't feeling too sure-footed about any decision it has made or is in contemplation of making. This doesn't look good for the new government.
Last week Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne did a very troubling thing in the Senate during debate on a resolution to allow Dutch authorities to come here and probe the whole Trafigura scandal.
In her contribution, the Attorney General disclosed that it was on the basis of legal advice from Deputy Solicitor General Professor Stephen Vasciannie that the previous government had blocked past attempts by the Dutch authorities to come to Jamaica and investigate the matter.
What was the aim?
Why did the Attorney General feel the need to call the name of Professor Vasciannie and disclose the advice he had given? What purpose did it serve to drag a civil servant into a matter based on his professional advice? The Attorney General's defence was that she was reading from a brief prepared by her office, but I should like to know what compulsion she was under to recite every single line she had been given.
Opposition spokesman on Justice A.J. Nicholson pointed out that the Attorney General had broken a long tradition of not disclosing the names of civil servants who had offered advice to government. I can't say that I was aware of this tradition, but if it does exist then I can see very good reasons for preserving it.
If we go down the Lightbourne road the country could be faced with a cadre of civil servants who shy away from giving their honest and professional opinion to government because of some fear that a change of government administration could bring them vilification. This is a very slippery slope. Send comments to vernon.daley@gmail.com
published: Tuesday | December 4, 2007
Vernon Daley
Based on news reports carried over the past few weeks there seems to be a stand-off between Prime Minister Bruce Golding and the Public Service Commission over the appointment of a new Solicitor General.
Apparently, the Commission's recommendation of Deputy Solicitor General Professor Stephen Vasciannie for the job, has not found favour with the Government.
We have heard that the Prime Minister has written to the Governor General, advising him to dissolve the Commission for what is said to be misbehaviour on the part of its members. What constitutes this misbehaviour, we have not been told.
The whole business has left the country wrapped in wild speculation because up to now we have not had a full statement from the Government on the matter. The Gleaner last week quoted Golding as saying he has "serious concerns about certain conflicts of interest in the whole process of selection that were not properly dealt with".
Personal animosity
Such a cryptic pronouncement from the Prime Minister is hardly enough to settle the concerns some people have about the way this issue is being handled. It certainly doesn't dispel the view that has taken root out there that the opposition to Professor Vasciannie is based on personal animosity between himself and Golding stemming from their time together in the now near-dead National Democratic Movement.
The Prime Minister needs to say something on the controversy urgently. It cannot be allowed to fester in this way. People have a right to know what their chief servant is doing about matters of state. There may be legitimate reasons for the Government's opposition to Professor Vasciannie and, indeed, the Public Service Commission, but the public can only make that assessment if the Prime Minister comes out and puts it all on the table.
The silence of the administration is giving the impression that it isn't feeling too sure-footed about any decision it has made or is in contemplation of making. This doesn't look good for the new government.
Last week Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne did a very troubling thing in the Senate during debate on a resolution to allow Dutch authorities to come here and probe the whole Trafigura scandal.
In her contribution, the Attorney General disclosed that it was on the basis of legal advice from Deputy Solicitor General Professor Stephen Vasciannie that the previous government had blocked past attempts by the Dutch authorities to come to Jamaica and investigate the matter.
What was the aim?
Why did the Attorney General feel the need to call the name of Professor Vasciannie and disclose the advice he had given? What purpose did it serve to drag a civil servant into a matter based on his professional advice? The Attorney General's defence was that she was reading from a brief prepared by her office, but I should like to know what compulsion she was under to recite every single line she had been given.
Opposition spokesman on Justice A.J. Nicholson pointed out that the Attorney General had broken a long tradition of not disclosing the names of civil servants who had offered advice to government. I can't say that I was aware of this tradition, but if it does exist then I can see very good reasons for preserving it.
If we go down the Lightbourne road the country could be faced with a cadre of civil servants who shy away from giving their honest and professional opinion to government because of some fear that a change of government administration could bring them vilification. This is a very slippery slope. Send comments to vernon.daley@gmail.com
Comment