Tweet
Facts Or Propaganda?
Facts Or Propaganda?
Published: Sunday | September 5, 20108 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor
So, now it's all The Gleaner's fault. Jamaica's difficulty isn't that the prime minister was less than candid with us. It's that a Gleaner editorial accused him of lying. And "some persons" apparently writing in The Gleaner allegedly prefer propaganda to facts.
OK, let's look at some facts. The minister of propaganda (Oops! Sorry, "information") has reiterated categorically that there was no contract between Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) and the Government. Implicit in that statement is an inference that the issue is all about whether or not there was such a contract. Facts or propaganda? Let's see.
FACT: There was such a contract. It existed informally as soon as the retainer was paid on September 18 and the first set of instructions on the facts (not "propaganda") came from the solicitor general to MPP (Attention: Harold Brady) the very next day.
The email exchange of December 28, 2009, where MPP suggested that it propose to USG, on behalf of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), a course of action for the two governments and our solicitor general consented is proof of a MPP-GOJ contract. Suggestion + consent + benefit = contract. The September 18-19 chronology destroys the Government's much propagated but mythical innuendo that a contract must be in writing. On October 1, MPP prepared a formal description of the existing 'relationship' in terms vague enough to satisfy FARA requirements without directly implicating the GOJ. Thereafter, both MPP and the Government behaved like parties to a retainer contract between MPP and the GOJ. Hatter, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... .
The real issue
But the more important fact in this issue isn't about whether or not there was a contract.
FACT: This issue is all about one word: trust. When next Jamaica is in crisis and we're briefed on the FACTS by our prime minister, will we automatically believe? If yes, then he must stay as PM. If no, he must go.
The information minister again asserts that he and Driva accept full responsibility for the 'mistake'. On May 18, the PM said, "I should never have allowed it, but I must accept responsibility for it ... ."
FACT: Full responsibility for calling Driva a 'dead cat' was forced upon Stephen Vasciannie before he could spend one day as solicitor general.
FACT: Full responsibility for refusing to fire Stephen Vasciannie was forced upon the Public Services Commission.
FACT: Full responsibility for earning too much money was forced upon Derick Latibeaudiere.
FACT: Full responsibility for allegedly failing to reduce crime was forced upon Hardley Lewin.
FACT: Full responsibility for only God knows what was forced upon some permanent secretaries.
FACT: Full responsibility for being unable to curb the others' profligacy was forced upon Ruth Potopsingh, a 30-year career civil servant.
FACT: Full responsibility for juggling her own money and (maybe) speaking out of turn was forced on Lenice Barnett.
Is this what you mean by "full responsibility", Minister? If I'm wrong, please specify exactly what your definition of "full responsibility" is, and how it differs in consequence from the experiences of those listed above.
In pointing his verbal shotgun at The Gleaner and "some persons", the JLP leader, as if unable to thaw frozen butter in his mouth, and with a look of wide-eyed innocence, solemnly asserted: "I have declared all that I know about this Manatt matter, but that still doesn't satisfy some people".
FACT: On May 11, 2010, the prime minister informed Parliament as follows: "A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18, 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the party. Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false as the party is fully aware of the source of these funds."
FACT: Neither the prime minister nor the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader has "declared" who was or were the source of these funds. Jamaica wants to know who paid the piper.
The minister of gobbledygook has argued that the donor hasn't given permission for his name to be disclosed. Are you mad, Hatter? Gaga? Who cares about the donor's permission? His identity isn't privileged, nor is it a state secret. Not even the identities of attorneys' clients are privileged. This attempted subversion of an extradition process and consequent intolerable embarrassment to an entire nation isn't a private matter. This person was so concerned about preserving the criminal hierarchy previously existing in Tivoli that he dug deep into his own pocket, or, alternatively, fronted and facilitated the handing over of other peoples' (maybe including Dudus') money to fund an extrajudicial defence of the alleged international crime don.
He was desperate that Dudus should never face any court.
One thing we're told is that he's a member of, or contributor to, the JLP. Is he still active? How close to Tivoli has he been in the past? How close is he now? How much clout does he have that he could so easily influence the party leader to sanction his dirty little scheme? And keep his dirty little secret even under the most extreme public pressure? Will he be allowed to seek our votes one day in the future while keeping his secret? Will we have to wait until he's appointed to a future Cabinet or given an ambassadorship before the truth is forced out? Why won't Driva come clean? Of whom is he afraid?
Justice must prevail
Until this important truth is revealed, we must never let the Manatt matter go. We must look high and low for this person who has so much contempt for due process that he would put his alleged criminal associations above his national pride. We must ensure that this person is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his attempted perversion of the course of justice with such tragic consequences. That he was trying to change the natural and lawful course of justice is established as a serious allegation by the Government's subsequent decision to proceed with the extradition when his plot failed. Or was foiled.
If the minister is not gaga, then this person certainly is. Let him sit in the dock beside Rev Al as what he did was far worse than Rev Al's chauffeuring services for the same bewigged fugitive. We must ensure that this particular Dudus accessory is never presented to the electorate as a candidate for any future election. We must insist that justice is meted out to all Persians just as it is to any Mede.
Congratulations to James Moss-Solomon for one of the most principled stands from a private-sector leader in memory. Any bets how many other business 'leaders' will follow his example? The cost to Jamaica of the cycle of distrust caused by Dudus' defence now resembles a golden credit card advertisement:
Cost of the Tivoli invasion to the private sector - $100 million.
Cost to the taxpayer of adverts resuscitating tourism - $850 million.
Cost to taxpayer to rebuild Coronation Market - $1 billion.
Cost of 73 lives - priceless.
Who will fire the Chief Firer?
Peace and love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Sunday | September 5, 20108 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor
So, now it's all The Gleaner's fault. Jamaica's difficulty isn't that the prime minister was less than candid with us. It's that a Gleaner editorial accused him of lying. And "some persons" apparently writing in The Gleaner allegedly prefer propaganda to facts.
OK, let's look at some facts. The minister of propaganda (Oops! Sorry, "information") has reiterated categorically that there was no contract between Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) and the Government. Implicit in that statement is an inference that the issue is all about whether or not there was such a contract. Facts or propaganda? Let's see.
FACT: There was such a contract. It existed informally as soon as the retainer was paid on September 18 and the first set of instructions on the facts (not "propaganda") came from the solicitor general to MPP (Attention: Harold Brady) the very next day.
The email exchange of December 28, 2009, where MPP suggested that it propose to USG, on behalf of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), a course of action for the two governments and our solicitor general consented is proof of a MPP-GOJ contract. Suggestion + consent + benefit = contract. The September 18-19 chronology destroys the Government's much propagated but mythical innuendo that a contract must be in writing. On October 1, MPP prepared a formal description of the existing 'relationship' in terms vague enough to satisfy FARA requirements without directly implicating the GOJ. Thereafter, both MPP and the Government behaved like parties to a retainer contract between MPP and the GOJ. Hatter, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... .
The real issue
But the more important fact in this issue isn't about whether or not there was a contract.
FACT: This issue is all about one word: trust. When next Jamaica is in crisis and we're briefed on the FACTS by our prime minister, will we automatically believe? If yes, then he must stay as PM. If no, he must go.
The information minister again asserts that he and Driva accept full responsibility for the 'mistake'. On May 18, the PM said, "I should never have allowed it, but I must accept responsibility for it ... ."
FACT: Full responsibility for calling Driva a 'dead cat' was forced upon Stephen Vasciannie before he could spend one day as solicitor general.
FACT: Full responsibility for refusing to fire Stephen Vasciannie was forced upon the Public Services Commission.
FACT: Full responsibility for earning too much money was forced upon Derick Latibeaudiere.
FACT: Full responsibility for allegedly failing to reduce crime was forced upon Hardley Lewin.
FACT: Full responsibility for only God knows what was forced upon some permanent secretaries.
FACT: Full responsibility for being unable to curb the others' profligacy was forced upon Ruth Potopsingh, a 30-year career civil servant.
FACT: Full responsibility for juggling her own money and (maybe) speaking out of turn was forced on Lenice Barnett.
Is this what you mean by "full responsibility", Minister? If I'm wrong, please specify exactly what your definition of "full responsibility" is, and how it differs in consequence from the experiences of those listed above.
In pointing his verbal shotgun at The Gleaner and "some persons", the JLP leader, as if unable to thaw frozen butter in his mouth, and with a look of wide-eyed innocence, solemnly asserted: "I have declared all that I know about this Manatt matter, but that still doesn't satisfy some people".
FACT: On May 11, 2010, the prime minister informed Parliament as follows: "A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18, 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the party. Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false as the party is fully aware of the source of these funds."
FACT: Neither the prime minister nor the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader has "declared" who was or were the source of these funds. Jamaica wants to know who paid the piper.
The minister of gobbledygook has argued that the donor hasn't given permission for his name to be disclosed. Are you mad, Hatter? Gaga? Who cares about the donor's permission? His identity isn't privileged, nor is it a state secret. Not even the identities of attorneys' clients are privileged. This attempted subversion of an extradition process and consequent intolerable embarrassment to an entire nation isn't a private matter. This person was so concerned about preserving the criminal hierarchy previously existing in Tivoli that he dug deep into his own pocket, or, alternatively, fronted and facilitated the handing over of other peoples' (maybe including Dudus') money to fund an extrajudicial defence of the alleged international crime don.
He was desperate that Dudus should never face any court.
One thing we're told is that he's a member of, or contributor to, the JLP. Is he still active? How close to Tivoli has he been in the past? How close is he now? How much clout does he have that he could so easily influence the party leader to sanction his dirty little scheme? And keep his dirty little secret even under the most extreme public pressure? Will he be allowed to seek our votes one day in the future while keeping his secret? Will we have to wait until he's appointed to a future Cabinet or given an ambassadorship before the truth is forced out? Why won't Driva come clean? Of whom is he afraid?
Justice must prevail
Until this important truth is revealed, we must never let the Manatt matter go. We must look high and low for this person who has so much contempt for due process that he would put his alleged criminal associations above his national pride. We must ensure that this person is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his attempted perversion of the course of justice with such tragic consequences. That he was trying to change the natural and lawful course of justice is established as a serious allegation by the Government's subsequent decision to proceed with the extradition when his plot failed. Or was foiled.
If the minister is not gaga, then this person certainly is. Let him sit in the dock beside Rev Al as what he did was far worse than Rev Al's chauffeuring services for the same bewigged fugitive. We must ensure that this particular Dudus accessory is never presented to the electorate as a candidate for any future election. We must insist that justice is meted out to all Persians just as it is to any Mede.
Congratulations to James Moss-Solomon for one of the most principled stands from a private-sector leader in memory. Any bets how many other business 'leaders' will follow his example? The cost to Jamaica of the cycle of distrust caused by Dudus' defence now resembles a golden credit card advertisement:
Cost of the Tivoli invasion to the private sector - $100 million.
Cost to the taxpayer of adverts resuscitating tourism - $850 million.
Cost to taxpayer to rebuild Coronation Market - $1 billion.
Cost of 73 lives - priceless.
Who will fire the Chief Firer?
Peace and love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment