Tweet
Brady's Lips Sealed
Published: Wednesday | January 19, 20110
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Law firm Henlin Gibson Henlin, in representing Harold Brady, has challenged the legality and validity of a summons served on its client by the commission of enquiry examining the circumstances leading up to the extradition of ousted west Kingston strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.
Brady is the attorney whose assistance was enlisted by the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to engage United States law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to help the Bruce Golding administration out of a diplomatic crisis created by the extradition request for Coke.
On Monday, the Emil George-led commission was told that while Golding had already submitted a prepared statement on his role in the engagement of the US law firm, Brady has rejected any participation in the enquiry.
In a letter addressed to Dr Allan Kirton, secretary to the commission, Brady's attorneys said their client would serve no useful purpose in being a witness.
"We act on behalf of Harold Brady, attorney-at-law, who has referred to us your letter to him dated the 11th January 2011," stated the letter to Kirton.
"The letter references a summons to our client as a witness. However, it is not itself a summons, nor does its contents, if it was intended to be a summons, conform to the requirements for same under the Commissions of Enquiry Act or any other form of summons known to law."
Henlin said Brady was awaiting a proper summons, pursuant to Section 10 of the act, if the commission intended to issue one.
The law firm disclosed that based on instructions, Brady was prepared to say that he was an attorney-at-law admitted to practise in Jamaica, a member of the private Bar and the senior partner of the law firm Brady & Co.
Not a public official
Henlin argued that Brady was neither a public officer nor a public official of any kind and has never acted in such a capacity in any matter relevant to the commission's undertaking.
"In so far as his conduct may be relevant to your purported terms of reference, he (Brady) did engage the US firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) on behalf of his law firm, which was MPP's only client at all material times," stated Henlin's letter.
The correspondence contended that any and all matters between himself, on behalf of his firm, and MPP are subject to attorney-client privilege which neither he nor his firm was prepared to waive.
"Accordingly, he (Brady) can be of no assistance whatsoever to the issues on, in or around your terms of reference."
On Monday, during its first meeting, the commission deliberated over how to treat the letter dispatched to it by Brady's attorneys.
George suggested that, if necessary, Brady would be subpoenaed to face the commission, which resumes its deliberations tomorrow.
Brady vs Golding
Since the Manatt muddle escalated with a chorus of demands for Golding's resignation last year, the relationship between the prime minister and Brady, a long-time JLP stalwart, has appeared to hit rock bottom.
Golding, who came under fire for the perception that the Jamaican Government had hired the law firm to lobby the US government for Coke, contends that Brady failed to carry out his instructions to engage Manatt on behalf of the JLP. Meanwhile, Brady has maintained that Golding is lying.
As the Manatt controversy engulfed the nation, Brady filed a libel lawsuit against Golding in the Supreme Court late last year.
Brady's suit claims libel for various statements "Golding made on September 14, 2010 at a press conference that contained words that were defamatory".
He labelled the prime minister's statements as false, malicious and "designed to conceal his misconduct in this matter".
However, Golding quickly countered, arguing that he would not withdraw from positions he had taken in relation to the engagement of MPP and Brady's conduct in the matter, "as these positions are true and will be corroborated".
Attempts to resolve the matter out of court failed.
gary.spaulding@gleanerjm.com
Published: Wednesday | January 19, 20110
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Law firm Henlin Gibson Henlin, in representing Harold Brady, has challenged the legality and validity of a summons served on its client by the commission of enquiry examining the circumstances leading up to the extradition of ousted west Kingston strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.
Brady is the attorney whose assistance was enlisted by the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to engage United States law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to help the Bruce Golding administration out of a diplomatic crisis created by the extradition request for Coke.
On Monday, the Emil George-led commission was told that while Golding had already submitted a prepared statement on his role in the engagement of the US law firm, Brady has rejected any participation in the enquiry.
In a letter addressed to Dr Allan Kirton, secretary to the commission, Brady's attorneys said their client would serve no useful purpose in being a witness.
"We act on behalf of Harold Brady, attorney-at-law, who has referred to us your letter to him dated the 11th January 2011," stated the letter to Kirton.
"The letter references a summons to our client as a witness. However, it is not itself a summons, nor does its contents, if it was intended to be a summons, conform to the requirements for same under the Commissions of Enquiry Act or any other form of summons known to law."
Henlin said Brady was awaiting a proper summons, pursuant to Section 10 of the act, if the commission intended to issue one.
The law firm disclosed that based on instructions, Brady was prepared to say that he was an attorney-at-law admitted to practise in Jamaica, a member of the private Bar and the senior partner of the law firm Brady & Co.
Not a public official
Henlin argued that Brady was neither a public officer nor a public official of any kind and has never acted in such a capacity in any matter relevant to the commission's undertaking.
"In so far as his conduct may be relevant to your purported terms of reference, he (Brady) did engage the US firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) on behalf of his law firm, which was MPP's only client at all material times," stated Henlin's letter.
The correspondence contended that any and all matters between himself, on behalf of his firm, and MPP are subject to attorney-client privilege which neither he nor his firm was prepared to waive.
"Accordingly, he (Brady) can be of no assistance whatsoever to the issues on, in or around your terms of reference."
On Monday, during its first meeting, the commission deliberated over how to treat the letter dispatched to it by Brady's attorneys.
George suggested that, if necessary, Brady would be subpoenaed to face the commission, which resumes its deliberations tomorrow.
Brady vs Golding
Since the Manatt muddle escalated with a chorus of demands for Golding's resignation last year, the relationship between the prime minister and Brady, a long-time JLP stalwart, has appeared to hit rock bottom.
Golding, who came under fire for the perception that the Jamaican Government had hired the law firm to lobby the US government for Coke, contends that Brady failed to carry out his instructions to engage Manatt on behalf of the JLP. Meanwhile, Brady has maintained that Golding is lying.
As the Manatt controversy engulfed the nation, Brady filed a libel lawsuit against Golding in the Supreme Court late last year.
Brady's suit claims libel for various statements "Golding made on September 14, 2010 at a press conference that contained words that were defamatory".
He labelled the prime minister's statements as false, malicious and "designed to conceal his misconduct in this matter".
However, Golding quickly countered, arguing that he would not withdraw from positions he had taken in relation to the engagement of MPP and Brady's conduct in the matter, "as these positions are true and will be corroborated".
Attempts to resolve the matter out of court failed.
gary.spaulding@gleanerjm.com
Comment