Tweet
Remember the donation was no different from the donation the JLP get from the Private sector and David Smith
1. What is being sought by the Dutch authorities is INFORMATION ON OATH to be presented as EVIDENCE in proceedings before their own domestic court. This is not evidence being given in our jurisdiction in a trial or hearing in a criminal case where an accused person is in peril. Neither is it a matter in which someone is seeking compensation in a civil matter; nor is it a fact-finding exercise as in a commission of enquiry, for example.
2. In other words, this is not a matter in which a Jamaican court is conducting an inquiry for adjudication or determination. The proceedings are merely enabling in nature, with a view to satisfying a request made by a foreign State under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. The Jamaican authorities have never been asked to investigate, to discover whether a crime has been committed in our jurisdiction. Campaign donations of this sort are not criminal in nature in Jamaica. What a hataclaps if it were otherwise!
3. It is to be noted that no one has ever complained that copious comment is made on the issue in several quarters from time to time, including in the print and electronic media and on political platforms. This is not a matter which is sub judice, in which event such comments would be impermissible. (That is the reason why the President of the Senate was wrong in attempting to prevent comment on the matter during debate in that House. The Standing Orders seek to protect the sub judice rule and nothing else, in this regard).
4. No one has ever been able to recall a request of this nature, which is meant to facilitate ongoing investigations by a foreign state, being heard in open court. In fact and in logic, there is much wisdom in not making public, matters that are going through a process of INVESTIGATION. Ask the experts!
5. Why then, would the JLP and their apologists insist that this evidence be made public and be given in open court when this is not a matter for adjudication in our courts and there is no precedent to ground their insistence? There certainly must be some obtuse motive.
6. We know the motive. It is, as our lawyers have been saying, for the material to be used for political propaganda purposes – the very same reason why Golding “colt the game” in the first place, and lied in doing so. Recall that his first comment in the House of Representatives was that these were monies due to the Consolidated Fund. Had he spoken the truth from the beginning, nothing would have come of it. In fact he had to mount a fabrication, to attract public interest. That is evil!
7. These submissions, inter alia, were made to Mr. Justice Campbell, who refused to see the light. Let’s hope the Court of Appeal will see behind the curtain of the call for “transparency” to satisfy an outrageously satanic motive
1. What is being sought by the Dutch authorities is INFORMATION ON OATH to be presented as EVIDENCE in proceedings before their own domestic court. This is not evidence being given in our jurisdiction in a trial or hearing in a criminal case where an accused person is in peril. Neither is it a matter in which someone is seeking compensation in a civil matter; nor is it a fact-finding exercise as in a commission of enquiry, for example.
2. In other words, this is not a matter in which a Jamaican court is conducting an inquiry for adjudication or determination. The proceedings are merely enabling in nature, with a view to satisfying a request made by a foreign State under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. The Jamaican authorities have never been asked to investigate, to discover whether a crime has been committed in our jurisdiction. Campaign donations of this sort are not criminal in nature in Jamaica. What a hataclaps if it were otherwise!
3. It is to be noted that no one has ever complained that copious comment is made on the issue in several quarters from time to time, including in the print and electronic media and on political platforms. This is not a matter which is sub judice, in which event such comments would be impermissible. (That is the reason why the President of the Senate was wrong in attempting to prevent comment on the matter during debate in that House. The Standing Orders seek to protect the sub judice rule and nothing else, in this regard).
4. No one has ever been able to recall a request of this nature, which is meant to facilitate ongoing investigations by a foreign state, being heard in open court. In fact and in logic, there is much wisdom in not making public, matters that are going through a process of INVESTIGATION. Ask the experts!
5. Why then, would the JLP and their apologists insist that this evidence be made public and be given in open court when this is not a matter for adjudication in our courts and there is no precedent to ground their insistence? There certainly must be some obtuse motive.
6. We know the motive. It is, as our lawyers have been saying, for the material to be used for political propaganda purposes – the very same reason why Golding “colt the game” in the first place, and lied in doing so. Recall that his first comment in the House of Representatives was that these were monies due to the Consolidated Fund. Had he spoken the truth from the beginning, nothing would have come of it. In fact he had to mount a fabrication, to attract public interest. That is evil!
7. These submissions, inter alia, were made to Mr. Justice Campbell, who refused to see the light. Let’s hope the Court of Appeal will see behind the curtain of the call for “transparency” to satisfy an outrageously satanic motive
Comment