Two bulls can't reign in the same pen

[Assasin]

Two bulls can't reign in the same pen
published: Wednesday | December 26, 2007

Rev Cyril Clarke, Contributor
The matter regarding the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Prime [COLOR=orange! important]Minister's[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] refusal to recommend the appointment of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as Solicitor General has generated much heated emotions, some because of misunderstanding, others by a wrong and strong attitude exhibited primarily by those bent on causing confusion and the flexing of political muscles.
Misunderstanding because they seem not to understand the role and privilege of the Prime Minister and the power invested in him by virtue of the Constitution. The Prime Minister is not second-fiddle to any in the country. He is not just the chief executive of the people, he is the supreme executive. He should not be subordinated to any as some would want him to be, nor should he compromise his rights and privileges in the present scenario.
Contrary to the views and opinions of the uninformed, the one who has the last word in the appointment of the Solicitor General is not the Governor-General (with due respect) or the Public Service Commission - some might mistakenly believe this - or the Leader of the Opposition, but the Prime Minister.
Until the Prime Minister satisfies himself of the suitability and [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]fitness[/COLOR][/COLOR] of the one selected by the Public Service Commission, and submitted to the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Governor[/COLOR][/COLOR]-General for appointment, the Governor-General cannot act until he first receives the Prime Minister's recommendation.
The operative word is 'recommendation.' The Prime Minister may choose to recommend or not to recommend. If he recommends, the appointment goes through, if he chooses not to, the proposal is returned to the Public Service Commission for reconsideration. And obviously and logically for new consideration.
The G-G cannot act
Ostensibly, then, the Solicitor General is appointed on the acceptance, approval and recommendation of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister does not approve and recommend the individual, the Governor-General cannot act.
In practice the process runs as follows:
1. The Public Service Commission receives and considers applications for consideration.
2. A selection is made and the successful applicant is referred to the Governor-General.
3. The Governor-General, in turn, refers the Public Service Commission selection to the Prime Minister for his approval and this is logical and correct as such a person will be required to work in association with the Government of the day.
4. The Prime Minister then consults with the Leader of the Opposition re the proposal.
5. Upon consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister recommends the applicant for appointment. If he does not, no appointment can take place as the Governor-General cannot act unilaterally.
It should be noted that while the Prime Minister may give due respect to the consideration of the Leader of the Opposition, he is not bound by his or her wishes, nor is he obliged to bow to his or her objections. He can act notwithstanding the Opposition's disapproval because he has the last word. Two bulls can't reign in the same pen. One must yield to the other and naturally its the weaker to the strong - the Opposition to the ruling party.
In this regard the power of the Public Service Commission does not supersede that of the Prime Minister, the elected head of Government. If for good and justifiable reasons he chooses not to accept the selection of the Public Service Commission but ask for a reconsideration, this should not be frowned upon, nor lead to abuse of the Prime Minister. He has not acted outside his bounds, nor abused power. He has done no more than is allowed by the Constitution, Chapter 9, part 1 Section 126 subsection 2. It's all within his rights and privileges.
Now if the Public Service Commission stoutly objects and defiantly refused to honour the request of the Prime Minister and his Government, wha does he have but to ask for the resignation of its members or to revoke their appointments? None!
Two cannot walk unless they agree. A wrong and strong attitude does not make for the harmonious relationship in good governance. In the present scenario, where then has the Prime Minister abused power or being a dictator?
After 45 years of Independence, it is high time we doff our prejudicial adversarial [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]hats[/COLOR][/COLOR] and adorn ourselves with one that is positive, patriotic and cooperative. It is time we cease this political one-upmanship game-playing and point-scoring and unite for the betterment of the country. It's time we move away from this to an enlightened and progressive path that will advance unity, goodwill and harmony.
Prime Minister Golding has done well since he assumed leadership of the country, notwithstanding the teething pains and the fact that he took the reins mid-stream the previous Government's budgetary arrangements and programmes, of which he is obliged to follow to some degree.
The reality of this seems to elude his critics who are hell-bent on undermining whatever gains he has made. It is unrealistic for him to attain 100 per cent of the promises made before September 3 in a matter of three months. He needs time, proper resources and timely legislation. 'Rome was not built in a day'.
What we have seen of Prime Minister Golding and his administration, thus far, is like a signpost pointing in a direction that says: "More and better things ahead." It's time to ACCENTUATE the positive and latch on to the AFFIRMATIVE. Rev. Cyril C. Clarke is Minister of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Four Paths, Osborne Store.

[Assasin]

Golding, PSC and the Opposition
Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, December 25, 2007


The controversy over the appointment of Professor Stephen Vasciannie and dissolving of the Public Service Commission (PSC) by Prime Minister Bruce Golding is really a power struggle between Golding, the PSC and the JLP Opposition for control of appointments of top officials to the Public Service.
By convention, whenever there is a change of government, members of the PSC do not wait until the prime minister asks them to resign. They resign as quickly as possible after the general election to clear the way for the prime minister to recommend to the governor general whom he wants on the PSC. In this case, Mr Golding had to ask the PSC members to resign, and when they would not, requested the governor general to dissolve the body. I learnt that many chairmen and members of boards are reluctant to resign, as if there was no change of government.
The prime minister has more than one reason to dissolve the PSC. He charged the PSC with misbehaviour in a case involving acting deputy solicitor general Lackston Robinson. The Supreme Court had ruled against the PSC's decision to recommend the retirement in the public interest of Robinson. The court ruled that Robinson be reinstated, but the PSC instead transferred him to the Tax Administration Service as deputy commissioner. The question being asked is whether the defiance of the order of the Supreme Court constituted misbehaviour.
The Jamaican Constitution, it is said, was written by gentlemen for gentlemen as a guide for good governance. There are so many loopholes in certain sections that only people with an honesty of purpose can make it work fairly and smoothly, or almost every month someone would ask the Constitutional Court to interpret one chapter or another.
At the time when the Constitution was being drafted for independence, the founding fathers could not have envisioned that the time would come when the executive arm of government would pack the PSC with its own sympathisers so that it would make any appointment to the Public Service the government wanted. Hence, over the years, the PSC has lost most of its credibility as an independent and impartial body.
The Patterson administration over its 14-year tenure of office was noted for flooding the PSC with its own people. Sympathisers of the People's National Party and friends loyal to Patterson, or those in whom he had confidence were appointed to the PSC which in turn appointed heads of entities and other top staff with PNP leanings to top posts.
The PSC, as the Constitution allows, from time to time, brought in top officials like the Cabinet Secretary who is answerable to the prime minister, to assist in some appointments. By this system the government tied up almost the entire Public Service and put it in its pockets, but quite legally and constitutionally. So the fight over the appointment of Professor Vasciannie was really about politics. It is doubtful if the PNP government had been returned to office, whether it would have considered Vasciannie for the job. This, however, is only a matter of speculation.
Recommending Professor Vasciannie to the governor general for the job was an imprudent act by the PSC, because he and Golding have been at daggers drawn from the days they had been in the National Democratic Movement. I understand that they are not now even on speaking terms. As solicitor general, Professor Vasciannie would have to advise the government and the prime minister.
The situation would be untenable and the PSC should have used its discretion. To force someone on the government in whom the prime minister apparently has no confidence could not have been the intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution. There are many other people, including Douglas Leys, deputy solicitor general and one of the applicants for the position, who could fill the post.
Raw politics caused the fight between the government and the Opposition to be so intense. Much is at stake. The fact is that the PSC, over the years, has sometimes been political and ideological in its approach. I remember in the 1970s when I worked at the Jamaica Information Service, the executive director recommended me for promotion. At that time the PNP had discarded democratic socialism and embarked on a course of orthodox socialism (communism). I was invited to appear before the PSC. One of the questions I was asked by a well-known communist was whether there is a difference between the state and the party. My answer was that there is a difference, although the line was thin. I never got the promotion. Of course, in the communist ideology the state and the party are indivisible.
The prime minister has more than one reason to dissolve the PSC. He charged the PSC with misbehaviour, in a case involving then acting deputy solicitor general Lackston Robinson. The Supreme Court had ruled against the PSC's decision to recommend the retirement of Robinson in the public interest. The court ruled that Robinson be reinstated, but the PSC instead transferred Robinson to the Tax Administration Service as deputy commissioner. The question being asked is whether the defiance of the order of the Supreme Court constitutes misbehaviour.
Meantime, Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller has obtained an injunction in the Supreme Court restraining Golding from replacing the members of the PSC. The court also ruled that the injunction is to remain in effect until after the judicial review application is heard.
Usually, I write about Christmas at this time of the year. However, the PSC-JLP-Golding matter is of such fundamental national importance that it could not be ignored.
I wish for you all A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!