Tweet
Did he really act alone? I dont think that he would dare to do it without approval of the PNP or Government.
Was everything he did legal? No.
Did he do the right thing? Yes, no doubt about that.
Is he a hero. Yes.
Where does he rank in the list of accused liars. At the bottom so far.
Was everything he did legal? No.
Did he do the right thing? Yes, no doubt about that.
Is he a hero. Yes.
Where does he rank in the list of accused liars. At the bottom so far.
Phillips acted alone - denies MOUs infringe on Jamaicans’ rights
Admits Cabinet, PJ unaware he signed controversial MOUs
BY TANESHA MUNDLE Observer staff reporter mundlet@jamaicaobserver.com
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Admits Cabinet, PJ unaware he signed controversial MOUs
BY TANESHA MUNDLE Observer staff reporter mundlet@jamaicaobserver.com
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
FORMER minister of national security Dr Peter Phillips yesterday admitted that he signed two controversial Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the United States and the United Kingdom without the knowledge of the Cabinet and the then prime minister, PJ Patterson.
At the same time, Dr Phillips — who served as security minister from 2001 to 2007 under the former People's National Party (PNP) administration — emphatically denied that the MOUs violated the rights of Jamaican citizens.
At the same time, Dr Phillips — who served as security minister from 2001 to 2007 under the former People's National Party (PNP) administration — emphatically denied that the MOUs violated the rights of Jamaican citizens.
Phillips, who first placed the hiring of United States law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips by the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in the public sphere last year, was testifying at the commission of enquiry into the Government's handling of the United States' extradition request for former Tivoli Gardens don Christopher 'Dudus' Coke at the Jamaica Conference Centre in downtown Kingston.
He was questioned extensively on the MOUs by his attorney Debra Martin.
The MOUs give local and foreign law enforcement agencies the right to intercept all landline and cellphone conversations on Cable and Wireless (now LIME) and Digicel switches in an effort to gather intelligence in the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime under a programme named Operation ANTHEM.
But the documents, which were seen by the Observer, give conflicting instructions about how wiretap intelligence can be used.
The document labelled MOU 1 states that all intelligence from ANTHEM passed to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) "is provided with the understanding and condition that it will be used for intelligence purposes only".
MOU 1 also instructs that the intelligence cannot be disseminated outside the DEA's Special Operations Division without the agreement of the Joint ANTHEM Consultative Group at which time it should have the following caveat: "This information is provided only for intelligence purposes in an effort to develop potential investigative leads. It cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings, subpoenas, or for legal or judicial purposes."
However, MOU 2 says that the Jamaican Narcotics Division (JND) "will supply to the DEA the product from the JND link in a format that the DEA can use as evidence in US courts".
Since the revelation of the provisions of the MOUs Phillips has been criticised as it is widely felt that the provisions infringe on the rights of Jamaicans.
However, when asked by his attorney if he had sacrificed the constitutional rights of Jamaicans when he signed the MOUs, Dr Phillips said, "Absolutely not!"
"These MOUs cannot provide for the interception of any communication in Jamaica between any Jamaican citizen and anyone else. These MOUs provide only for the sharing of intelligence," he said.
He testified that the request for interception of communication would not target innocent, law-abiding citizens and that the Interception of Communication Act governs the sharing of information gathered by intercepts in Jamaica, which has to be authorised by a Supreme Court judge.
"The provisions of the Act made it clear what needs to be satisfied in an affidavit, that is if there is a threat to the security of the country and in relation to a particular scheduled crime, or if there is a threat to national security of the country," Dr Phillips said.
According to Phillips, the MOUs cover operational intelligence arrangements regarding training for persons who would install and maintain the equipment, responsibilities of each of the agencies involved, provision of funds and the terms and conditions under which the intelligence gathered could be used.
"It does not substitute for, in any way, shape or form, the responsibility of the courts that are the only authority capable in law of ordering the interception of communication," Dr Phillips said.
However, when asked about his authority in signing the documents, he said his ministerial responsibility and the fact that the MOUs were in "full conformity" with the policy of the then Government to co-operate with international agencies in the sharing of intelligence gave him the right to sign the documents.
"These MOUs established no new policy nor did they change any policy. They were simply matters dealing with the management facility and the management of intelligence product," he said.
Earlier, Dr Ronald Robinson, former junior minister in the foreign affairs and foreign trade ministry who ended his cross-examination yesterday, again contradicted statements made by Prime Minister Bruce Golding relating to the hiring of the US law firm to deal with the Coke extradition.
Robinson testified that the statement made to the commission by the prime minister that he (Robinson) met with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to ask him for assistance with the extradition matter and that Golding had advised him that he was acting on behalf of the JLP were false.
He also told the enquiry that both the prime minister and the then JLP general secretary Karl Samuda had made omissions when they failed to report that it was Golding who had sent him (Robinson) to meet with representatives of the law firm and that he found it odd.
Meanwhile, Cabinet minister Karl Samuda took the witness stand earlier in the morning but his testimony was short-lived after attorneys for the JLP objected to him being cross-examined without giving a formal statement.
The minister was then instructed to make a formal statement at the earliest possible time after which he would be recalled to give evidence.
Dr Phillips will continue to undergo cross-examination today.
He was questioned extensively on the MOUs by his attorney Debra Martin.
The MOUs give local and foreign law enforcement agencies the right to intercept all landline and cellphone conversations on Cable and Wireless (now LIME) and Digicel switches in an effort to gather intelligence in the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime under a programme named Operation ANTHEM.
But the documents, which were seen by the Observer, give conflicting instructions about how wiretap intelligence can be used.
The document labelled MOU 1 states that all intelligence from ANTHEM passed to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) "is provided with the understanding and condition that it will be used for intelligence purposes only".
MOU 1 also instructs that the intelligence cannot be disseminated outside the DEA's Special Operations Division without the agreement of the Joint ANTHEM Consultative Group at which time it should have the following caveat: "This information is provided only for intelligence purposes in an effort to develop potential investigative leads. It cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings, subpoenas, or for legal or judicial purposes."
However, MOU 2 says that the Jamaican Narcotics Division (JND) "will supply to the DEA the product from the JND link in a format that the DEA can use as evidence in US courts".
Since the revelation of the provisions of the MOUs Phillips has been criticised as it is widely felt that the provisions infringe on the rights of Jamaicans.
However, when asked by his attorney if he had sacrificed the constitutional rights of Jamaicans when he signed the MOUs, Dr Phillips said, "Absolutely not!"
"These MOUs cannot provide for the interception of any communication in Jamaica between any Jamaican citizen and anyone else. These MOUs provide only for the sharing of intelligence," he said.
He testified that the request for interception of communication would not target innocent, law-abiding citizens and that the Interception of Communication Act governs the sharing of information gathered by intercepts in Jamaica, which has to be authorised by a Supreme Court judge.
"The provisions of the Act made it clear what needs to be satisfied in an affidavit, that is if there is a threat to the security of the country and in relation to a particular scheduled crime, or if there is a threat to national security of the country," Dr Phillips said.
According to Phillips, the MOUs cover operational intelligence arrangements regarding training for persons who would install and maintain the equipment, responsibilities of each of the agencies involved, provision of funds and the terms and conditions under which the intelligence gathered could be used.
"It does not substitute for, in any way, shape or form, the responsibility of the courts that are the only authority capable in law of ordering the interception of communication," Dr Phillips said.
However, when asked about his authority in signing the documents, he said his ministerial responsibility and the fact that the MOUs were in "full conformity" with the policy of the then Government to co-operate with international agencies in the sharing of intelligence gave him the right to sign the documents.
"These MOUs established no new policy nor did they change any policy. They were simply matters dealing with the management facility and the management of intelligence product," he said.
Earlier, Dr Ronald Robinson, former junior minister in the foreign affairs and foreign trade ministry who ended his cross-examination yesterday, again contradicted statements made by Prime Minister Bruce Golding relating to the hiring of the US law firm to deal with the Coke extradition.
Robinson testified that the statement made to the commission by the prime minister that he (Robinson) met with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to ask him for assistance with the extradition matter and that Golding had advised him that he was acting on behalf of the JLP were false.
He also told the enquiry that both the prime minister and the then JLP general secretary Karl Samuda had made omissions when they failed to report that it was Golding who had sent him (Robinson) to meet with representatives of the law firm and that he found it odd.
Meanwhile, Cabinet minister Karl Samuda took the witness stand earlier in the morning but his testimony was short-lived after attorneys for the JLP objected to him being cross-examined without giving a formal statement.
The minister was then instructed to make a formal statement at the earliest possible time after which he would be recalled to give evidence.
Dr Phillips will continue to undergo cross-examination today.
Comment