An extraordinary set of circumstances has arisen this week, which has led to an embarrassing and completely unnecessary “cass cass” (in Jamaican parlance, this means a confusing, personal, sometimes vindictive tit-for-tat argument). I believe it is unnecessary because it could have been avoided, if the parliamentary procedures that set it all in motion had been done properly.
Here is the full text of the letter from Senior Deputy Director of Prosecutions Kathy Ann Pyke referred to below. The publication of this letter took the concerns about “rushing” a constitutional amendment through Parliament in one day to a whole different level (the “cass cass”).
I hasten to add that I have no legal training, nor am I an expert on the Jamaican Constitution (far from it!) However, in the past few days I have listened to many who are experts, and have come to the conclusion that the bickering back and forth could have all been avoided. If I had been our Director of Public Prosecutions – a household name in Jamaica, I would say – Ms. Paula Llewellyn (whom I have always admired for the open and frank approach she has taken to her work) I think at this point I would have said: “OK, you know what – I think I will resign, in the interests of Jamaica. I don’t want to be a part of this.” But there may well be other issues at play.
Now, this has become a storm cloud hanging over the Holness administration, and Ms. Llewellyn’s own office, on the eve of our Emancipation/Independence celebrations.
Here is what Jamaicans for Justice has to say on the topic, today:
JFJ RECOMMENDS APPOINTMENT OF A NEW DPP THROUGH A TRANSPARENT PROCESS
Sunday, July 30, 2023 – Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) expresses deep concern around the unfolding controversy surrounding the highest office of the prosecutorial functions of the state. We contend that the unnecessary controversy was stirred due to the government’s undemocratic approach towards the amendment process regarding the age of retirement.
We note that in an unprecedented move, the government both tabled and passed a constitutional amendment bill in a matter of hours. The amendments see the retirement age of both the Auditor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) increasing from 60 to 65 years. However, with the current Auditor General not being close to her retirement age, it is noted that the immediate beneficiary will be the incumbent DPP, who already benefitted from a three-year extension set to expire in September.
Although we recognize the significance of streamlining the age of retirement, we posit that a de facto second extension of the DPP’s term without consultation with the leader of the Opposition runs contrary to the tenets of good governance and the spirit of the supreme law. While the country is governed by a parliamentary governance structure, the government ought not to be using simple majority to subvert the role of the legislature on critical constitutional matters. This is an abuse of power.
We further posit that whilst the DPP has never demonstrated partisanship, one must be mindful of how the unfolding imbroglio has casted a shadow on the office. Accordingly, JFJ’s concern lies in the likely public perception that the ODPP’s independence and impartiality are now possibly compromised.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) plays a critical role in ensuring that justice is served and that the rule of law is upheld. Therefore, such constitutionally independent office cannot be shrouded in unnecessary controversy. From a public interest standpoint and to maintain public trust, JFJ firmly advocates for the appointment of a new Director of Public Prosecution through a transparent and merit-based process.
Should the government not accede to the advice of other groups where the increased retirement age is not applicable to the current office holder, JFJ then urges the incumbent DPP not to seek a second extension. Having served almost fifteen years as the first female office holder, an untarnished bowing out would not only leave the incumbent’s track record of service intact but would also protect the integrity of the office.
JFJ calls for independent review of ODPP allegations
JFJ has also taken note of the troubling exchange between the DPP and a senior deputy director, Kathy Ann Pyke. It is in the interest of justice, public and good administration that questions and concerns of Ms. Pyke be independently assessed and determined. One cannot ignore the possibility that some concerns may very well be shared by other present and former prosecutors.
The organisation is therefore calling for the Public Services Commission (PSC) to appoint an independent committee to review the operation of the ODPP and possible concerns of the staff. This should be done in similar vein like the Muirhead Committee of 2002, which investigated public controversy between former DPP Kent Pantry and senior prosecutors, including Paula Llewellyn.
From JFJ’s perspective, if Ms. Pyke’s concerns are even half true, then the DPP’s tenure in office is untenable, and certainly in the immediate, requires high level intermediaries to mediate and address the concerns. If Ms. Llewellyn’s concerns regarding Ms. Pyke are also even half true, Ms. Llewellyn should demit office. She would, despite prior warnings, have unjustly subjected her staff, the ODPP, court and public to abuse from an “eccentric” person. She would have seemingly taken no satisfactory steps to bring this “eccentric” person to account despite “multiple” reports from staff, defence and court. Her own words disqualify her from continuing in the post as DPP.
While the matter is being investigated and addressed through the PSC appointed committee, it is also necessary to ensure that Ms. Pyke receives protection in keeping with the Protected Disclosure Act. JFJ has received multiple reports about well-thinking members of the public sector, including doctors and police, being silenced by their leadership or having faced some form of retaliation. Some of these persons were advised to exercise restraint in relation to public postings on public interest matters that concern their profession. This cannot be in the interest of Jamaica. Ms. Pyke must therefore be treated as a whistleblower while the matter is adjudicated. Having read the documents that are in the public domain, we are unconvinced that the attacks against Ms. Pyke are justified.
Petchary's Blog 