What's going on in AG's Dept?

[Karl]

What's going on in AG's Dept?
KEN CHAPLIN
Tuesday, January 15, 2008


When I first entered the civil service at the Jamaica Information Service in 1963, civil servants, as government employees were then called, were mostly independent people. Serving the interest of a political party was hardly noticeable compared to what it is today. They worked hard irrespective of the political party which formed the government.

There was no question of sabotage by civil servants who supported the Loyal Opposition as is happening today. Permanent secretaries ran the ministries on a non-partisan basis. No prime minister or minister could push them around.

Things started to change from 1967, and many civil servants quietly began to get involved in politics. Political direction of the top civil servants gathered momentum in the 1970s. First, the PNP set up the Pickersgill Accreditation Committee (PAC) led by Minister Robert Pickersgill. The purpose of the committee was to check the political credentials of civil servants, and many civil servants were summoned for interviews by a select committee.

The venue for interviews was the University of the West Indies. Many civil servants turned up, but the interviews were called off after widespread protests inside and outside the civil service. The interviews were interpreted as an attempt to further politicise the service by weeding out people suspected of not being supporters of the PNP. In the 1980s the JLP government made an ad hoc attempt to get some of its supporters into key positions in the government.

The PNP government started a programme in the 1990s to further politicise the service. The programme was quite successful. The government created executive agencies and placed its followers in these key agencies from top to bottom. It was perhaps the most complete capturing of the public service seen in Jamaica. The government had no problem securing employment for its people in the public service, because it made sure that the majority of the members of the Public Service Commission which made the appointments were supporters of the PNP.

The civil service later became known as the public service. The government achieved without trouble what the Pickersgill Accreditation Committee would have done. One agency which got its fair share of committed people over the 18-year period of the last PNP government was the Attorney General's Department which advises the minister of justice and attorney general. According to a ministry officer, a group of attorneys was established in the department. The group operated like a department within the department, sometimes outside the purview of the permanent secretary, and was not accountable to that high official.

The group operated as a law unto itself. For example, attorneys were interviewed by the group and recommendations for appointment made directly to the Public Service Commission, ignoring the permanent secretary, the official said. This is wrong. It is the responsibility of the permanent secretary to arrange and preside over interviews and make recommendations for appointment to the commission.

The official said that the minister and permanent secretary need to know about the operations of the department, who are coming in and who are leaving. The former minister and attorney general AJ Nicholson had his fingers on everything. He was informed on court matters in which the department had given advice, but he never sought to change the course of justice. He never interfered, I'm told. Nicholson was a first-class official.

The present minister, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, and the permanent secretary have a right to know about the operations of the department, the official said. The minister, who is a distinguished attorney, has asked about the policy of the department on certain important matters, but got no response up to the time this column was written. It seems as if the group sets its own policy.

The minister who has to answer to the prime minister and the public also needed to know whether improvement of the service is necessary, and the cause of delays in advising her, the official said. She has a right to know what is happening in the department and even to look at some of the advice given, but there should be no political interference nor to interfere once the matter reaches court, the official said.

The attorneys are paid, but they charge some statutory agencies fat fees for advice. Some time ago the solicitor general and six women attorneys went to a law conference in Kenya and when the minister asked whether it was taxpayers' money that financed the trip, she was told that the money came from the group's bank account. In the other ministries and departments funds earned from cost recovery are treated as revenue. As to who gave permission for the group to charge agencies and open its own bank account could not be established.

The official said that the solicitor general is not mentioned in the Jamaican Constitution. Under the Act of Appointment the solicitor general assists the attorney general. This means that the solicitor general is the principal legal adviser of the government. The impression might have been given in the column last week Tuesday that all attorneys in the department are political activists.

The official said there are some who do not dabble in politics and are highly professional. If the column caused uneasiness among the attorneys, including my acquaintances, I apologise. The relations between the minister and certain attorneys is deteriorating, and the sooner an inquiry is carried out the better it will be for all.

Useful contributions to the debate in the Observer have been made by Patrick Foster, solicitor general (acting), and one DS Morgan. Unfortunately, Morgan, like many Jamaican politicians, resorted to personal abuse toward the end of his letter.

[Karl]

Withdraw partisanship accusation, Ken

Withdraw partisanship accusation, Ken

Tuesday, January 22, 2008


Dear Editor,
I am heartened to see that the acting solicitor general, Patrick Foster, has firmly rebutted Ken Chaplin's unfounded attack on the reputation of the lawyers of the Attorney General's Chambers. I am also glad to see that Michael Pennycooke and D S Morgan have also raised their voices in objection to Ken Chaplin's unwarranted assault on the integrity of these lawyers.

To some extent, I take Mr Chaplin's attack personally, given that I am not only a lawyer, but the son of a retired deputy solicitor general. My father, Peter Sobers, spent 30 years in the AG's Chambers under different governments, including the PNP government that recently demitted office. My father, as a senior member of the Chambers during the last regime, would presumably have had an input in personnel management decisions in the Chambers. By implication, Mr Chaplin's analysis indicts him as either a PNP activist or an accomplice to those who sought to recruit such activists during the PNP regime. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The most superficial research would reveal that my father, like the rest of his colleagues in the AG's Chambers, have unfailingly comported themselves with the dignity, independence, and professionalism that the job requires. In my own interactions with the AG's Chambers over the past 20 years, I have never encountered partisan behaviour that favours either the PNP or the JLP.

It might interest Mr Chaplin to know that Supreme Court judges are frequently recruited from the AG's Chambers. During the PNP regime, for example, Miss Justice Mangatal, Mr Justice Campbell, and I believe, Mr Justice Langrin (retired), were all recruited from the AG's Chambers. Is Mr Chaplin also accusing these judges of being PNP activists?

As a matter of decency, Mr Chaplin should withdraw his accusation of partisanship and apologise to the lawyers, past and present, of the AG's Chambers.
Hilaire Sobers
ohilaire@yahoo.com

[Karl]

Strange 'official'

Saturday, January 19, 2008


Dear Editor,
I read Ken Chaplin's article of January 15, and I am happy that he thought that the contribution by the acting solicitor general and mine were useful additions to the PSC debate.

I note that he has apologised that his January 8 column might have caused uneasiness among the attorneys in the Attorney General's Department. Following that spirit, I am quite willing to apologise for revealing that people might wonder whether certain challenges existed, though whether that came under the heading of "personal abuse" is somewhat debatable.

It seems to me, though, that he is being deluded by a mysterious being called "official" - a malevolent, duplicitous person who has resorted to lies and half-truths in his struggle against the department.

"Official" has steered Mr Chaplin in directions that will take him nowhere useful, conveniently forgetting to advise him of provisions in the Staff Orders that approve public officers working on matters for statutory authorities and government companies who seek those services.

"Official" also has forgotten to point out that rates of fees for such services have been approved by the financial secretary, and the fee policy was approved by previous Cabinets.

Copies of all invoices issued by the department are sent to the Ministry of Justice. While a portion of these fees is paid to the individual attorney, the other portion is paid into a special account that is utilised for, among other things, facilitating of training opportunities for attorneys who attend workshops and share their newly acquired knowledge with their colleagues on their return.

"Official" has forgotten to say that the Ministry is advised about all trips by members of the department to attend such workshops, seminars and conferences (including the salaciously described trip to Kenya to attend the recent Commonwealth Law Conference), and the Ministry would arrange for payment from the special account. A senior Ministry official is a co-signatory on the account, so the Ministry must be involved.

"Official" does not take the trouble to point out that the department has submitted a corporate plan and annual and quarterly reports to the Ministry so that if a Ministry official claimed ignorance of the department's operations, as suggested, that person would be startlingly uninformed or somewhat economical with the truth. Such a Ministry official who did not pass that information to the minister and attorney general, especially at this time, would be falling down on the job.

The sad part about all this is that Mr Chaplin, apparently, has fallen for "official's" nonsense quite enthusiastically, without much, if any investigation. Back in his days at the helm, if a junior reporter had come to him with a story like this, one can be sure that he would have asked, among other things, whether the reporter had checked that story with the department. I have been advised that he did not make any checks with the department itself. Unfortunately, now that he has "official" to guide him, he apparently feels that foolishness like that is not necessary.

One is really disappointed in Mr Chaplin and his approach in this whole affair. It is even more disappointing to hear undiscerning members of the public taking note and sometimes even supporting what he and others have said along the lines of his columns, no doubt much to the delight of "official".
DS Morgan
PO Box 17
Kingston 8

[Karl]

Mr Chaplin and the PSC

Wednesday, January 16, 2008


Dear Editor,
I read Mr Ken Chaplin's column of January 8 and have wanted to respond since then. However, there were so many things wrong with that article, I did not know where to start.

I have seen where others have dealt with his tendency to ascribe partisan political motives to people who disagree with him. I would therefore like to deal with one issue - his statement about the recommended appointment of Professor Vasciannie by the PSC.

He mentions an occasion in the past where Prof Vascianne criticised Mr Golding and goes on to say: "Having regard to the criticism, it was unthinkable that the PSC would have recommended the appointment of a man who has to work in a critical position in the government led by Golding."

Mr Chaplin should first realise that true professionals are capable of working with people with whom they have disagreements. The Jamaican people deserve no less from both Mr Golding and Prof Vascianne. Secondly, it seems that Mr Chaplin would have the PSC consider past political statements and political persuasion in making appointments, and that these political considerations should outweigh professional qualifications and experience of applicants.
That is what most people call political victimisation.

Hugh P Smythe
10 Schooner Court
Westmoorings
Trinidad and Tobago
hsmythe@tstt.net.tt