Withdrawal of letter to former clerk of Houses, gets louder

[Sir X]

“Last week Tuesday, in the House of Representatives, the Opposition called for the withdrawal of this letter, as it violates well-established public sector employment practices and amounts to nothing short of reprehensible maladministration and an abuse of power.

“The Opposition notes that the repercussions of the Speaker’s conduct extend beyond the clerk. It has given rise to significant consternation within the public service as not only was it issued without proper legal authority, but it also seriously violates basic principles of good employment relations.


https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/2024...-clerk-houses/

[Sir X]

Holness' letter to Curtis sets grave precedent


Eyes are trained on Gordon House today to see whether House Speaker Juliet Holness will withdraw a letter reprimanding to former Clerk to the Houses Valrie Curtis, following mounting pressure for the parliamentary referee to apologise.

A chorus of calls have come from civil society and senior trade union leaders for the Speaker to tender an apology to Curtis after she accused the former public servant of “gross dereliction” of duty and bringing the Parliament into disrepute.




https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/...rave-precedent



I would say a threat to democracy or democratic norms. The speaker acted arbitrarily or went rogue, the fact that she refuses to disclose her legal counsel jurisprudence ,one must conclude she had none!. She acted on her own volition which means she is morally corrupt, to the point of bringing parliament in disrepute, or against democratic norms thereby threatening democracy. Seeing that no apology is forthcoming we are at Banana republic status.

[Sir X]

Speaker’s withholding of AG’s opinion to be litigated

“However, given the significant public interest in this matter, I think it is important to highlight that the Speaker can waive the privilege and disclose the advice,” he said.

But Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) Executive Director Mickel Jackson has argued that the matter ought to be ventilated in court.

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/...n-be-litigated

Well my dear you said you received legal advice to the contrary ?, well from whom , the AG or another. Dissonance you call it ........lol.....The public wants to know, yuh think it did done ....lol .

[Sir X]

It would be a messy affair should Ms Monroe Ellis continue to forward reports to the House for them to only land in parliamentary purgatory or sent back by the Speaker.

In that context, the opinion of the attorney general is important, to be contrasted against that from the parliamentary counsel upon which Mrs Holness hangs her decision. It is against the norms of transparency and good governance that, whatever its conclusions, the Speaker should want to keep the attorney general’s opinion secret.

Jamaicans for Justice, through its executive director, Mickel Jackson, raised an important question of who, in this case, was the attorney general’s – the legal advisor to the government – client, and whether what he did amounted to legal advice to the government, covered by confidentiality, or merely sharing an opinion on law sought on Parliament’s behalf.

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/...urt-ag-opinion

[Sir X]

Opposition senators label letter to Curtis ‘a cruel act’

Scott-Mottley presses for withdrawal; former clerk of the Houses of Parliament commended for service.


CALLING THE letter written by House Speaker Juliet Holness to former Clerk of the Houses of Parliament Valrie Curtis “a cruel act”, opposition senators on Friday pressed for its withdrawal and for the celebration of the civil servant who retired from the position a week ago.

Opposition Senator Donna Scott-Mottley said Curtis’ departure was sullied by the “devastating missive” crafted by Holness and widely circulated when it was shared with dozens of politicians.


https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/...rtis-cruel-act

I am trying hard to understand what was the reprimand for , was it because the clerk didnt return the reports to the AG fast enough or she disagreed with their return ? . Can anyone of you green tribalist explain, because one fact is true they were returned !. As I understand it the speaker belief that they should be disseminated to M.P is a constitutional matter that should be addressed by legal counsel, which she said she did , so what is the reprimand for

[Sir X]

• On another level, the Auditor General’s 2023 annual report pointed to arid weather in respect of the Rule of Law. That report indicated that diverse ministries, departments, and agencies were in breach of the Financial Administration Act and the Public Bodies Management Accountability Act. They were in breach of the reporting requirements that would allow proper assessment of whether billions of dollars of public funds were being spent effectively and in accordance with budgetary stipulations. The Gleaner’s headline on January 21 appropriately summed up this situation ‘Trillion dollar accountability crisis’. Similarly, the vast majority of public bodies continue to defy, with impunity, the law requiring such agencies to report annually to the responsible minister and through that channel, to the Parliament, and to the Jamaican people. In that regard, the last such annual report from NEPA was 10 years ago. As such, we the public are chronically deprived of the lawfully stipulated means to know what this body and others are doing and to hold them to account.

• Along the same lines, infringing on the public’s right to transparency, in November 2023, the Speaker ruled that the long-standing practice of the Parliament receiving as soon as possible, reports sent from the Office of the Auditor General and the Integrity Commission, was to be curtailed. This ruling has so far stood despite strong and widespread objection from the citizenry and from the Parliamentary Opposition. Arguably as well, and in the face of as yet undisclosed advice from the Attorney General.

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/...rnance-drought