RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EDITORIAL - Golding travelling a dangerous road

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EDITORIAL - Golding travelling a dangerous road

    EDITORIAL - Golding travelling a dangerous road
    published: Thursday | December 13, 2007


    Having expectations of new approaches to governance and a curb of prime ministerial power, we find it regrettable that Bruce Golding is ploughing ahead with his attempt at a constitutional putsch.

    The Governor-General, Sir Kenneth Hall, it has been reported, has acted on Mr. Golding's recommendation and fired the members of the Public Service Commission, who had resisted his attempt to frustrate their appointment of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as the Solicitor General. Mr. Golding has purportedly charged that the members of the PSC are guilty of misbehaviour.

    It is good that they have decided to challenge Mr. Golding's action in court. For much is at stake, not least constitutional order and the broader rule of law.

    It is important, therefore, that the courts pronounce on this matter with urgency lest we find ourselves lurching from one constitutional crisis to the other, or that the heavy hand of prime ministerial power becomes imprinted on every public service appointment.

    Under the Jamaican Constitution appointments and discipline in the public sectors, except in a few, and narrowly defined areas, rest with the PSC, acting through the Governor-General. The Solicitor General is one of the jobs which is in the power of the PSC to make a recommendation on the appointment of the occupant.

    The Constitution does allow the Prime Minister a single request for a review of a proposed appointment, but once the PSC holds fast to its recommendation, that appointment, based on any literate reading of the constitution, should go through. Which is what is applicable in the case of Professor Vasciannie, a Jamaican of high academic achievement and a one-time political colleague of Mr. Golding.

    There is good reason why the framers of the Jamaican Constitution vested such power in the PSC. It was clearly an attempt at insulating the professional public service from the political executive.

    Mr. Golding is seeking, however, to circumvent this insulation.

    First, the PM's political supporters and spokespersons questioned Professor Vasciannie's capacity for the job, arguing that he lacked courtroom experience, as though the search is for some Perry Mason character. What is necessary is a critical understanding of, and capacity to interpret and apply the law. In the end, the opponents of Professor Vasciannie settled on this charade of supposed misbehaviour by the PSC.

    It is not good enough, though, merely to throw mud and hope that it sticks. If Mr. Golding believes there has been misconduct among this highly respectable group of Jamaicans, he is bound by duty and decency to say precisely how they misbehaved.

    Part of the dribbling accusations against the PSC, too, is that they allowed persons who were not members of the commission to be part of the interviewing and/or selection process. Yet, Section 127 (1) of the constitution does allow the PSC to delegate functions to members, officials or other authorities, once certain procedures for the delegation of those powers are followed.

    Mr. Golding has started out on a dangerous road, but he is not yet at the point of no return. He can still retreat. If the Prime Minister genuinely feels that this is an area of the Constitution demanding change, he should place it among his suite of intended reforms.

    The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
    Solidarity is not a matter of well wishing, but is sharing the very same fate whether in victory or in death.
    Che Guevara.

  • #2
    Golding is wrong here!
    ...stupidly wrong!
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

    Comment


    • #3
      i am glad they are going to court with this... this is not the area to set precedents... there are other issues that adversely affect jamaica the should be a priority... him mussi think him name chavez...
      'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

      Comment


      • #4
        btw, and then what... the next govt comes in and make the same fabricated charge of misbehavior, fire the psc or take it another step, remove the govenor-general...
        'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

        Comment


        • #5
          Fram mi see him ah talk bout change constitution,
          give more power in parliament mi did know. Him even waan disolve the central bank and hand over the central banking to private interest. JA is
          finished. Is just a pity that since Joshua no improvements were made on his domestic policies, hence the populace remained under educated. This in turn attributed to our present crime rate and lack of sophistication within the electorate (free dis an free dat; we are an embarrassment on the INT'L scene) .

          Comment


          • #6
            it's clear that the JLP is just
            making things up as they go along. they never expected to win; they can't lead a nation.

            Comment


            • #7
              PSC will lose in court.

              Comment


              • #8
                A bit of PSC history
                published: Thursday | December 13, 2007


                The Editor, Sir:
                How times have changed! Shortly after his victorious 1976 election Prime Minister Michael Manley declared that the people had spoken; and he indicated that he wanted a new Public Service Commission.

                This resulted in the voluntary resignation of the members of the then PSC, including Prof. Gladstone Mills (chairman) Mr. Eric Abrahams, Mr. Oliver Jones and Dr. Phyllis McPherson-Russell. After that, Mr. Manley recommended to Governor-General Glasspole that Mr. E. Lloyd Taylor be named as the new chairman. There was no fuss.

                In January 1980 Mr. Manley again recommended a new PSC headed by Mr. Taylor. This time the Civil Service Association publicly called for a revocation on the grounds that the membership was too much influenced by politics and trade unionism. Manley did not heed the cry.

                Loss
                However, by December of that very year, he lost to Edward Seaga who immediately set about naming a new Public Service Commission headed by Mr. A.B. Smith, a noted civil servant who had retired. There was no fuss, no controversy, no commotion.

                I think it curious that the recently deposed members of the PSC did not graciously take the hint of imminent termination when the signs appeared some time ago. To make matters worse, we are now hearing that legal action is being considered in an effort to keep them in a place where they are obviously not welcome. It may be that they have found the taste of power quite delectable. In which case Shakespearean advice is appropriate: 'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour.'
                I am, etc.,
                KEN JONES
                alllerdyce@hotmail.com
                Last edited by Karl; December 14, 2007, 08:54 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  One man's opinion:

                  Sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Constitution are meant to create a PUBLIC SERVICE eg. permanent secretary, solicitor general etc. It seeks to impose distance between the PM and these appointments. The PSC is that buffer. However the sections do not seek to create distance between the PM and the PSC because the insulation of the PSC is not the purpose. The purpose is to insulate the Public Service.That is why the sections spell out the means by which the appointees may challenge PSC decisons, however no such privilege is spelled out for the PSC relative to the PM. The PSC has little to no judicial recourse and serve so long as the do not misbehave. That determination(MISBEHAVIOR) is left solely to the GG acting on the recommendation of the PM and is not reviewable. If it could be reviewed the constitution would have said so. IT DOES NOT!

                  The privilege of NATURAL JUSTICE requiring NOTICE and opportunity to be heard is not available to PSC members because the constitution did not provide for it. It could have, but chose not to.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Portia vs Bruce - The PSC debacle
                    published: Thursday | December 13, 2007

                    Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller said in court documents yesterday that Prime Minister Bruce Golding informed her in writing on November 16 of the reasons for his recommendation that the members of the Public Service Commission be removed from office.

                    The following are the reasons:
                    In the action brought by Mr. Lackston Robinson, a former Deputy Solicitor General (acting) against the Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court found, inter alia,that the Public Service Commission "displayed a cavalier attitude to justice and due process and has breached the applicant's rights to procedural fairness and natural justice. This constitutes a breach of Section 13 of the Constitution of Jamaica and is, therefore unlawful, null and void.

                    "The recommendation of the Public Service Commission for the appointment of a Solicitor General is procedurally flawed and open to challenge on the grounds of bias and conflict of interest and the following was given ostensibly as the particulars:
                    "In the case referred to above, Mr. Douglas Leys, one of the applicants for the post of Solicitor General, had issued an affidavit in support of Mr. Robinson's claim in which he was harshly critical of the conduct and decisions of the former Solicitor General, Mr. Michael Hylton, and the Commission. Yet the Commission, in its assessment of the applicants for the post, relied in part on the evaluation provided by Mr. Hylton it was well aware of the less than harmonious relationship that has existed between Mr. Hylton and Mr. Leys.

                    "One member of the Commission who participated in the interview process failed to recuse herself, knowing the relationship between Mr. Hylton and Mr. Leys, which I contend she should have done, given the fact that she is the mother of Mr. Hylton's child. The other members of the Commission,being aware of this, appear not to have considered it to be of any relevance.

                    "In interviewing the applicants on October 2, 2007, the Commission established an interviewing panel which included two persons who are not members of the Commission. These persons participated in the interviews and their scores were included in the overall score on which the Commission has based its recommendation. These persons were ostensibly performing the functions of members of the Commission without holding membership of the Commission. It is unfortunate that the Cabinet Secretary was one of these participants - a clear breach of the intention, if not the letter of Section 124 (3) of the Constitution which bars holders of public office from serving as members of the Commission. Surely, the members of the Commission must have known that this procedure was wrong."

                    President of the Jamaican Bar Association John Leiba was one of the participants on the commission.

                    Lackston Robinson had taken the PSC to court after he was reverted to his substantive post of Senior Assistant Attorney-General after acting in a clear vacancy for more than a year. He claimed he should have been assessed in the acting post before he was reverted. After he filed the suit against the PSC he was sent on leave and the PSC subsequently recommended that he should be retired. In July, the Supreme Court ordered that he should be reinstated and Mr. Justice Roy criticised the PSC for the manner in which Mr. Robinson was treated.
                    Last edited by Karl; December 14, 2007, 08:52 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So Manley, as states Ken Jones (...and, although I find Ken likeable, based on his 'facts' from the recent past I have my reservations)...but, let's accept Ken is correct - Are we then to continue going down the wrong path...do the wrong thing because in the past doing those worng was fashionable?

                      If Ken is suggesting that is the way to go...then I would respectfully disagree.
                      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Nothing legally wrong about it.

                        There is a clear provision in the constitution for it.

                        Clearly it is not even unprecedented in our political culture.

                        THINK about it, the PNP has gone all legaleze about things they have done in the past. how are these actions helping Jamaica?? It is clear politicking against a 3 month old government. I cannot support such obstructionist actions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          but a wha di....yuh only si it as he wrong path when a nuh your party dweet?! good lord man!

                          Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You must separate 2 issues...is Bruce on the right moral/political track and is he on firm LEGAL ground.

                            The courts will decide the latter, but it seems open and shut to me.

                            The former is debatable, but given the High Court ruling against this PSC, their non-standard application of protocol in the interview process (shutting 2 members out of the process and conferring with 2 civil servants) and the clear precedence of PM appointing their own PSC, then I think the weight is with Bruce.

                            In truth, this PSC is a Patterson appointment and should have tendered their resignation from mid September. Bruce blundered in not requesting it then, as he would have known of the July High Court ruling from then!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Willi View Post
                              Nothing legally wrong about it.

                              There is a clear provision in the constitution for it.

                              Clearly it is not even unprecedented in our political culture.

                              THINK about it, the PNP has gone all legaleze about things they have done in the past. how are these actions helping Jamaica?? It is clear politicking against a 3 month old government. I cannot support such obstructionist actions.
                              So are you suggesting the wrongs the PNP did must be perpetuated on the people?
                              "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X