Tweet
You could have said more, Prime Minister
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Bookmark and Share
CORNERED by a fragmented tale woven since August 2009, hemmed in on all sides by calls for his resignation and supported by a bumbling cast of archaic, arrogant and petty party players (JLP Gen Sec Karl Samuda and Chairman Dr Ken Baugh), a penitent-looking Prime Minister Golding came to the nation three days ago and begged us to forgive him.
In doing so, he announced that the US extradition request for Dudus would be signed, then mouthed words that rang with all that sounded politically correct.
GOLDING... why did he allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions?
[Hide Description] GOLDING... why did he allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions?
[Restore Description]
1/1
It is not in the habit of Jamaican politicians to apologise, but in doing so Mr Golding seemed to have found it difficult to understand that the first and only precondition for an apology is an expression of the TOTAL TRUTH, and not selective bits and pieces of it.
The first question that needed answering is why did Golding allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions while an important structure of government, the Attorney General's office, was seen by many as debased to the point of initiating what seemed to be nothing more than kangaroo proceedings in our courts? His speech, which seemed quite sincere, needed to be more of a confessional than an apology drawn out of him.
If the court has not made a determination, one way or the other, that could stand in the way of the signing of the request, why did the prime minister stress out this nation for so long and then, in the space of his 14-minute presentation, it was announced as a done deal? If nothing was standing in the way, why was it not done in, say, September 2009? The speech was insufficient in the full explanation of that.
But there is an even more important consideration. Remember now, by the prime minister's own admission, the engagement with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips (MPP) was sanctioned by him acting in his position solely as JLP party leader. If we are to take that as gospel, especially at a time when honesty in leadership is under fire, assumptions arising from that places the prime minister in a precarious position.
Now, for a moment, imagine a scenario where the PNP had retained power in the September 2007 elections. The PNP forms the government and the JLP is the Opposition. The US sends in a request for Mr Christopher Coke and accuses him of involvement in the illicit trade in drugs and gun running. The JLP leader Bruce Golding, in an effort to assist an important member of his constituency, arranges to engage the services of the US law firm MPP to lobby the US government on its behalf to determine if there are any holes through which the extradition request could fall. As a start, the JLP, through unnamed contributors ponies up US$50,000.
As the constitutionally placed Opposition, would not the JLP be exposing itself to an unlawful intrusion in a state-to-state treaty matter on behalf of a man whom the US has cited as being a dangerous drug kingpin? Would this not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice? Even in a purely ethical sense, would a party that wishes to form a government at some time in the near future risk that exposure?
How then could the Government of Jamaica be involved in dealing with a crucial extradition issue with the US government, while at the same time the JLP Opposition employed a US lobby group to influence US lawmakers in reversing the extradition request? What moral authority would the JLP Opposition have in the Parliament of Jamaica, especially in debates on the country's crippling problem of violent crime?
Could Manatt, Phelps and Phillips even consider such an engagement? Absolutely not!
With the JLP as the administration running the government of Jamaica in 2009, by the same reasoning, what is it that gave the JLP (purely as a political party separate from government), any legal or moral authority to act in a manner that would seem to be in opposition to treaty matters between the US and the Government of Jamaica? Well, Prime Minister, I have read between the lines and I see it clearly.
If sufficient numbers of Jamaicans decide to accept the prime minister's apology, he ought to know that calls for his resignation will not readily go away because many people can see the holes in his speech. Plus, the prime minister needs to ask himself why MPP is still insisting that they were engaged by the Government of Jamaica. To me, some person or persons must have approached MPP and convinced the lobby firm that the engagement was one from the Government of Jamaica.
One of my major disappointments with the prime minister's speech was the lack of his addressing the nation's security concerns over likely responses to the attempt to arrest Coke, a person highly regarded by those in Tivoli Gardens. Immediately after Mr Golding's speech, I received telephone calls from two Cabinet ministers.
When I pointed out this omission to one of them, he suggested that had the prime minister even mentioned such a concern, it probably would have brought on additional panic. In the interim, one of my US sources who has close links with intelligence-gathering and security concerns emailed me the following Tuesday: "Already, there is along our north coast, an American ship waiting just in case. The headquarters at Up Park Camp has more than one American helicopter ready to transport troops to any area considered to be a trouble spot."
Now that the arrest warrant has been signed, will Coke surrender to the police? A highly intelligent man who has mass street support beyond Tivoli Gardens, he is aware of the risks of that as evidenced by his father's death in March 1992 while he was in a jail cell awaiting extradition. His former lawyer, Tom Tavares-Finson had said at the time, "If you believe Jim Brown just burnt to death by accident in his jail cell, you'll believe in the tooth fairy. The only thing I can tell you for sure - and I saw the body- is that Jim Brown is dead."
Another important consideration is that we may have been swayed too much by the prime minister's contrition to have lost the momentum presented to this nation to begin the long climb out of the pit of criminal politics that has crippled us for too long.
For this reason, we will hold the "chief servant" to every word of his speech and call him out, even if he pricks his finger or stubs his toe. It must be driven home to the prime minister that even if some are willing to give him a second chance, the only real way left for him to capture the attention of those still calling for his resignation is results, more results and a sense that he is the director rather than an actor having a bit part.
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Bookmark and Share
CORNERED by a fragmented tale woven since August 2009, hemmed in on all sides by calls for his resignation and supported by a bumbling cast of archaic, arrogant and petty party players (JLP Gen Sec Karl Samuda and Chairman Dr Ken Baugh), a penitent-looking Prime Minister Golding came to the nation three days ago and begged us to forgive him.
In doing so, he announced that the US extradition request for Dudus would be signed, then mouthed words that rang with all that sounded politically correct.
GOLDING... why did he allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions?
[Hide Description] GOLDING... why did he allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions?
[Restore Description]
1/1
It is not in the habit of Jamaican politicians to apologise, but in doing so Mr Golding seemed to have found it difficult to understand that the first and only precondition for an apology is an expression of the TOTAL TRUTH, and not selective bits and pieces of it.
The first question that needed answering is why did Golding allow the nation to be involved in nine months of obvious lies and distractions while an important structure of government, the Attorney General's office, was seen by many as debased to the point of initiating what seemed to be nothing more than kangaroo proceedings in our courts? His speech, which seemed quite sincere, needed to be more of a confessional than an apology drawn out of him.
If the court has not made a determination, one way or the other, that could stand in the way of the signing of the request, why did the prime minister stress out this nation for so long and then, in the space of his 14-minute presentation, it was announced as a done deal? If nothing was standing in the way, why was it not done in, say, September 2009? The speech was insufficient in the full explanation of that.
But there is an even more important consideration. Remember now, by the prime minister's own admission, the engagement with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips (MPP) was sanctioned by him acting in his position solely as JLP party leader. If we are to take that as gospel, especially at a time when honesty in leadership is under fire, assumptions arising from that places the prime minister in a precarious position.
Now, for a moment, imagine a scenario where the PNP had retained power in the September 2007 elections. The PNP forms the government and the JLP is the Opposition. The US sends in a request for Mr Christopher Coke and accuses him of involvement in the illicit trade in drugs and gun running. The JLP leader Bruce Golding, in an effort to assist an important member of his constituency, arranges to engage the services of the US law firm MPP to lobby the US government on its behalf to determine if there are any holes through which the extradition request could fall. As a start, the JLP, through unnamed contributors ponies up US$50,000.
As the constitutionally placed Opposition, would not the JLP be exposing itself to an unlawful intrusion in a state-to-state treaty matter on behalf of a man whom the US has cited as being a dangerous drug kingpin? Would this not be an attempt to pervert the course of justice? Even in a purely ethical sense, would a party that wishes to form a government at some time in the near future risk that exposure?
How then could the Government of Jamaica be involved in dealing with a crucial extradition issue with the US government, while at the same time the JLP Opposition employed a US lobby group to influence US lawmakers in reversing the extradition request? What moral authority would the JLP Opposition have in the Parliament of Jamaica, especially in debates on the country's crippling problem of violent crime?
Could Manatt, Phelps and Phillips even consider such an engagement? Absolutely not!
With the JLP as the administration running the government of Jamaica in 2009, by the same reasoning, what is it that gave the JLP (purely as a political party separate from government), any legal or moral authority to act in a manner that would seem to be in opposition to treaty matters between the US and the Government of Jamaica? Well, Prime Minister, I have read between the lines and I see it clearly.
If sufficient numbers of Jamaicans decide to accept the prime minister's apology, he ought to know that calls for his resignation will not readily go away because many people can see the holes in his speech. Plus, the prime minister needs to ask himself why MPP is still insisting that they were engaged by the Government of Jamaica. To me, some person or persons must have approached MPP and convinced the lobby firm that the engagement was one from the Government of Jamaica.
One of my major disappointments with the prime minister's speech was the lack of his addressing the nation's security concerns over likely responses to the attempt to arrest Coke, a person highly regarded by those in Tivoli Gardens. Immediately after Mr Golding's speech, I received telephone calls from two Cabinet ministers.
When I pointed out this omission to one of them, he suggested that had the prime minister even mentioned such a concern, it probably would have brought on additional panic. In the interim, one of my US sources who has close links with intelligence-gathering and security concerns emailed me the following Tuesday: "Already, there is along our north coast, an American ship waiting just in case. The headquarters at Up Park Camp has more than one American helicopter ready to transport troops to any area considered to be a trouble spot."
Now that the arrest warrant has been signed, will Coke surrender to the police? A highly intelligent man who has mass street support beyond Tivoli Gardens, he is aware of the risks of that as evidenced by his father's death in March 1992 while he was in a jail cell awaiting extradition. His former lawyer, Tom Tavares-Finson had said at the time, "If you believe Jim Brown just burnt to death by accident in his jail cell, you'll believe in the tooth fairy. The only thing I can tell you for sure - and I saw the body- is that Jim Brown is dead."
Another important consideration is that we may have been swayed too much by the prime minister's contrition to have lost the momentum presented to this nation to begin the long climb out of the pit of criminal politics that has crippled us for too long.
For this reason, we will hold the "chief servant" to every word of his speech and call him out, even if he pricks his finger or stubs his toe. It must be driven home to the prime minister that even if some are willing to give him a second chance, the only real way left for him to capture the attention of those still calling for his resignation is results, more results and a sense that he is the director rather than an actor having a bit part.
Comment