Tweet
..... the Emperor has no clothes and no good way out. The Chessmaster has checkmated himself....smaddy cyan suh foolfool?
Golding's revelation changes everything... for the worse
CLAUDE ROBINSON
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Bruce Golding's revelation in Parliament last Tuesday that he authorised the hiring of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby the US Government to back off on their request for the extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke changes everything.
It's no longer about whether Attorney General and Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne should or should not sign the request; it's not about whether the request observed or violated a bilateral treaty; it's not about whether Harold Brady misrepresented himself and should face consequences; and it's not about whether Solicitor General Douglas Leys compromised his office and should face consequences.
The real issue is Bruce Golding, the constitutional prime minister of Jamaica and the extent to which he has damaged his moral authority and eroded the social base necessary to lead and govern the country.
Simply put, future utterances from Prime Minister Golding will not carry the requisite weight and trust essential to securing support from the Jamaican people.
He has severely wounded his capacity effectively to carry out what he once described accurately as the "awesome power" of the Office of Prime Minister -- a power which he has obviously confused with leadership of the Jamaica
Labour Party.
The events that have unfolded between March 16, when the prime minister vehemently denied that his JLP Government had entered into any arrangement with Manatt, to his declaration May 11 that he had personally approved the scheme on behalf of the JLP, reveal a trail of misinformation, falsehoods and deliberate deceptions.
The May 11 statement, which was expected to bring closure to the issue, has raised more questions than it has answered.
Mr Golding has sought to clothe himself with the rules of parliamentary order to explain why he did not reveal the true nature of his involvement when Peter Phillips, the Opposition point man on the Manatt issue, first sounded the alarm on March 16.
At that time, the prime minister declared, "The Government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever in relation to any extradition matter other than deploying the resources that are available within the Attorney General's Department."
Now, he says he's still standing by that statement because he "sanctioned the initiative" as leader of the JLP and he had "made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party, not by or on behalf of the Government".
But that artful splitting of his roles as prime minister and party leader cannot stand, and it raises the question: why did elements in the JLP believe it was in their interest to bypass the normal governmental channels and go on their own lobbying on "treaty matters" with the US when there was no precedent for this?
Why did the prime minister not volunteer that the JLP had hired the lobbyists, that he approved it and that there had been ongoing contacts between Brady, the solicitor general and Manatt? Why did he waffle or downright mislead on the issue?
We still do not know how Manatt came to the view that they had been hired by the Government of Jamaica.
Further, the artful separation of party and government is at variance with Mr Golding's strident assertion in 2006 that PNP ministers could not claim they were acting in their party capacities when they struck the deal with Trafigura.
Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, then prime minister, was, quite rightly, the subject of much ridicule when she dismissed reporters' questions about the Trafigura donation to the PNP by telling them to, "Ask the PNP".
Said Mr Golding in 2006, "We can't just jump out of one skin and jump into another" especially where the contacts and reach you have as a party official are "contingent on the constitutional capacity you have" as minister.
His call for the resignation of the Government then applies with even greater force to him, as prime minister, now.
The Opposition must do its duty and force the issue in Parliament. They cannot be dissuaded by fears that they are not ready for a general election.
The prime minister's involvement in this sordid affair is compounded by two other things: The 'elements in the JLP' that inspired the lobbying are still not identified and second, we still do not know why the effort was undertaken by these 'elements' and not by
the Government.
Dr Horace Chang, a deputy leader of the JLP, said on TVJ Wednesday night that he did not know who put the scheme to Mr Golding but he knew "for certain" that no member of the Cabinet was involved. And it has also been established that the matter did not go through the normal decision-making bodies of the party.
And why did 'elements' in the JLP conclude in September 2009 that a dispute existed when the timelines stated by the Government suggest
the contrary?
According to the Government's chronology, the request to have Coke extradited to face charges of trafficking in guns and drugs was made
August 25, 2009.
By way of diplomatic note, the GOJ replied September 18 saying the evidence supporting the request was not enough to convict Coke in a Jamaican court and so Jamaica wanted further information. The US replied October 2 saying no further information would be forthcoming and urged the Government to place the matter in the local courts.
It was only in a follow-up Diplomatic Note of October 30 that the GOJ sought "information on the circumstances under which the US came in possession of the intercepted information".
Hence the official chronology circulated to the media some weeks ago makes it clear that there was no "treaty dispute" back in September. So the 'elements' in the JLP must have been reacting to the fact of the extradition request and were quite prepared to engage a lobbying firm and commit to pay as much as US$400,000 to the effort.
So the question again: Who were the elements and what was their real interest in a treaty dispute between Jamaica and the United States? Do they have effective control over the government even when they do not count Cabinet members among their ranks, if Dr Chang is to be believed?
We know the prime minister is not a fool. So he must know that he has alienated large elements of Jamaican society in all social classes; he must know that the US Government cannot take kindly to his 'revelation' that they were deceived into thinking they were being lobbied by the Government when the interlocutor was really the JLP; he must know that the deception could land Manatt into criminal charges in the US so they must push back.
Hence the question that has dominated debate since Tuesday's statement in Parliament: What interest is so vital that it trumps all
these considerations?
Civil society, including the Church, the business community, the unions, civic groups at community and national levels must demand answers and channel their anger and outrage into demands that the prime minister does the right thing.
As Mr. Golding said in 2006, "Respectable democracies, Mr Speaker, hold their governments accountable against fraud, deception and lies." That remains true in 2010.
Golding's revelation changes everything... for the worse
CLAUDE ROBINSON
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Bruce Golding's revelation in Parliament last Tuesday that he authorised the hiring of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby the US Government to back off on their request for the extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke changes everything.
It's no longer about whether Attorney General and Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne should or should not sign the request; it's not about whether the request observed or violated a bilateral treaty; it's not about whether Harold Brady misrepresented himself and should face consequences; and it's not about whether Solicitor General Douglas Leys compromised his office and should face consequences.
The real issue is Bruce Golding, the constitutional prime minister of Jamaica and the extent to which he has damaged his moral authority and eroded the social base necessary to lead and govern the country.
Simply put, future utterances from Prime Minister Golding will not carry the requisite weight and trust essential to securing support from the Jamaican people.
He has severely wounded his capacity effectively to carry out what he once described accurately as the "awesome power" of the Office of Prime Minister -- a power which he has obviously confused with leadership of the Jamaica
Labour Party.
The events that have unfolded between March 16, when the prime minister vehemently denied that his JLP Government had entered into any arrangement with Manatt, to his declaration May 11 that he had personally approved the scheme on behalf of the JLP, reveal a trail of misinformation, falsehoods and deliberate deceptions.
The May 11 statement, which was expected to bring closure to the issue, has raised more questions than it has answered.
Mr Golding has sought to clothe himself with the rules of parliamentary order to explain why he did not reveal the true nature of his involvement when Peter Phillips, the Opposition point man on the Manatt issue, first sounded the alarm on March 16.
At that time, the prime minister declared, "The Government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever in relation to any extradition matter other than deploying the resources that are available within the Attorney General's Department."
Now, he says he's still standing by that statement because he "sanctioned the initiative" as leader of the JLP and he had "made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party, not by or on behalf of the Government".
But that artful splitting of his roles as prime minister and party leader cannot stand, and it raises the question: why did elements in the JLP believe it was in their interest to bypass the normal governmental channels and go on their own lobbying on "treaty matters" with the US when there was no precedent for this?
Why did the prime minister not volunteer that the JLP had hired the lobbyists, that he approved it and that there had been ongoing contacts between Brady, the solicitor general and Manatt? Why did he waffle or downright mislead on the issue?
We still do not know how Manatt came to the view that they had been hired by the Government of Jamaica.
Further, the artful separation of party and government is at variance with Mr Golding's strident assertion in 2006 that PNP ministers could not claim they were acting in their party capacities when they struck the deal with Trafigura.
Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, then prime minister, was, quite rightly, the subject of much ridicule when she dismissed reporters' questions about the Trafigura donation to the PNP by telling them to, "Ask the PNP".
Said Mr Golding in 2006, "We can't just jump out of one skin and jump into another" especially where the contacts and reach you have as a party official are "contingent on the constitutional capacity you have" as minister.
His call for the resignation of the Government then applies with even greater force to him, as prime minister, now.
The Opposition must do its duty and force the issue in Parliament. They cannot be dissuaded by fears that they are not ready for a general election.
The prime minister's involvement in this sordid affair is compounded by two other things: The 'elements in the JLP' that inspired the lobbying are still not identified and second, we still do not know why the effort was undertaken by these 'elements' and not by
the Government.
Dr Horace Chang, a deputy leader of the JLP, said on TVJ Wednesday night that he did not know who put the scheme to Mr Golding but he knew "for certain" that no member of the Cabinet was involved. And it has also been established that the matter did not go through the normal decision-making bodies of the party.
And why did 'elements' in the JLP conclude in September 2009 that a dispute existed when the timelines stated by the Government suggest
the contrary?
According to the Government's chronology, the request to have Coke extradited to face charges of trafficking in guns and drugs was made
August 25, 2009.
By way of diplomatic note, the GOJ replied September 18 saying the evidence supporting the request was not enough to convict Coke in a Jamaican court and so Jamaica wanted further information. The US replied October 2 saying no further information would be forthcoming and urged the Government to place the matter in the local courts.
It was only in a follow-up Diplomatic Note of October 30 that the GOJ sought "information on the circumstances under which the US came in possession of the intercepted information".
Hence the official chronology circulated to the media some weeks ago makes it clear that there was no "treaty dispute" back in September. So the 'elements' in the JLP must have been reacting to the fact of the extradition request and were quite prepared to engage a lobbying firm and commit to pay as much as US$400,000 to the effort.
So the question again: Who were the elements and what was their real interest in a treaty dispute between Jamaica and the United States? Do they have effective control over the government even when they do not count Cabinet members among their ranks, if Dr Chang is to be believed?
We know the prime minister is not a fool. So he must know that he has alienated large elements of Jamaican society in all social classes; he must know that the US Government cannot take kindly to his 'revelation' that they were deceived into thinking they were being lobbied by the Government when the interlocutor was really the JLP; he must know that the deception could land Manatt into criminal charges in the US so they must push back.
Hence the question that has dominated debate since Tuesday's statement in Parliament: What interest is so vital that it trumps all
these considerations?
Civil society, including the Church, the business community, the unions, civic groups at community and national levels must demand answers and channel their anger and outrage into demands that the prime minister does the right thing.
As Mr. Golding said in 2006, "Respectable democracies, Mr Speaker, hold their governments accountable against fraud, deception and lies." That remains true in 2010.
