Don't hold your breath

On Friday, July 2, during the urgings of the opposition senators that the Government should establish an independent commission of enquiry to receive evidence and make determinations and recommendations concerning the non-receding, still in-your-face extradition matter, the minister of national security, Senator Dwight Nelson, muttered: "Don't hold your breath."

The Jamaican people, according to the security minister and the Government, by implication, are not entitled to reasonable explanations for the shocking happenings of the recent past, and the continuing revelations and insinuations which appear to be unending. Answers as to how all this was caused would certainly assist in preventing Jamaica from being taken down that road again.

And yet, the minister constantly pleads that he needs the assistance of a public - denied such answers and explanations - to meet the challenges of the tough and demanding fight against crime. Such answers are none of their business. The minister and the Government are not concerned at the truth or otherwise of the shocking statement or revelation of the former commissioner of police and chief of defence staff that, in the earliest moments of what should have been the final stages of a well-managed and closely-planned operation, the subject of the extradition request was tipped off.

Separate and apart from the public manner in which the Government determined that the matter should be played out, at the beginning of the end of the extradition episode, there was a public broadcast by the prime minister that the authority to proceed was about to be signed, which gave the subject the clearest of heads-up. According to the former commissioner, as is the norm, such matters are best handled with speed and secrecy. It would, therefore, not be difficult to conclude that there might have been a clandestine tip-off early in the proceedings. Surely, the evidence points in that direction. On the other hand, with the presentation of other evidence, that conclusion might prove to be quite erroneous. Only an independent, impartial and trustworthy enquiry could remove or minimise any doubt that has been left to germinate and grow.

Such a tribunal would be able to inquire into the basis and nature of the advice that was given to the Government concerning the signing of the authority to proceed. That advice was referred to by the prime minister in the House of Representatives as having come from a private attorney, and it should be made public, for no legal advice given to a government by an attorney general or otherwise has had such a devastating effect on Jamaica. We ought not to be left to speculate as to whether that was advice which turned the established interpretation of the extradition treaty on its head, and as to why the Government eventually had to retreat from that position.

In two days, over 70 lives were lost during the incursion into Tivoli Gardens. In the early part of the decade, some 26 persons were killed in a similar venture, and an enquiry was conducted, among other things, to determine what had taken place. During the six years, between 2003 and 2009, 179 British lives were lost in the Iraq war. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, had changed his mind and had given two opposite opinions to the Government as to the legal propriety of Britain's entry into the war. There was widespread speculation as to what caused the attorney general to act as he did, but in any event, a commission of enquiry was established to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding what had taken place and, for whatever reason, the attorney general did not maintain that post until the end of the parliamentary term. In Jamaica, such governance issues are now approached differently.

And it is supposed that we should not hold our collective breath for explanations as to why this case was treated differently to all others, and the critical role of the solicitor general in the clear scheme to keep the requested subject in Jamaica, and the contents of his email correspondence with person(s) at an address that belonged to the lobby firm - a matter on which the prime minister was pressed by Dr Omar Davies in the House. And the national security minister and the Government are adamant that the full story relating to the pregnant issues surrounding the contract with the lobby firm will not be told, including the source of the funds that were paid, given all the linkages.

It means that the people are not entitled to know how much of public funds have been expended on fees to lawyers, travel for government officials, accommodation, upkeep and entertainment in an effort to "protect the human rights of a Jamaican citizen". Should they not be given a full explanation as to why they themselves had to expend so much human energy and capital to come to terms with want was happening around them, and why the protection of their human rights, including the right to life, was put on the back burner?

misconception and misjudgement

Sadly, the misconception and misjudgement of the Government as to the reality and the conventional sentiment as to what all this has caused was recently expressed in the Senate, which had just lost a junior foreign affairs minister to the machinations of the Government. That awkward expression came from the remaining junior minister in that ministry that in her travels, there has been no revelation of Jamaica's image or Brand Jamaica having been tarnished. Later, on the same day, the evening news had the man at the heart of tourism in Jamaica lamenting that, as a result of how the extradition process was handled, our tourism product was on the market as "damaged goods".

And, we should not hold our breath in relation to Jamaica within CARICOM, far less, CARICOM within Jamaica, as the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and foreign trade has reminded us. There is the clear need to concentrate our young minds on a development zone - something new and relevant. After all, they will have to approach the new global arrangements with eyes that are totally different to the generations that have gone before them. The repeated view is that CARICOM is a glorified talk shop which constantly fails to implement decisions arrived at.

But, what really is the stance or policy of Jamaica's present government to the regional economic integration movement? Is there a coherent policy? When the Time for Action report of the distinguished commission headed by Sir Shridath Ramphal was received and accepted in 1992, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), with both an original jurisdiction to interpret the treaty provisions that should guide the development of the movement, and an appellate jurisdiction that would replace that of the British-based final court, was projected to become one of the pillars of the integration initiative.

The party that forms the present government has never displayed a coherent approach to Jamaica's involvement in that agreed flagship institution. We dare to hope that the recent entreaty of President Jagdeo of Guyana, CARICOM's most experienced head of government, for Jamaica to take its trade grouses to the CCJ is seen as subtle advice that this is a prime example of a failure to implement decisions that have been reached. Now, we have heard not one word coming out of the just concluded heads of government conference relating to what is to become of the projected centrepiece of the regional economic integration movement.

questions

In Jamaica's case, is this to be left to a future generation? What does the Government find so objection-able and insurmountable in the agreement establishing the court and the arrangements for its proper functioning that propels its continuous reluctance and rejection? What are the positive elements that have been seen and acknowledged by Barbados, Guyana and Belize that continue to be unrecognisable to the present government here in Jamaica?

What are the impossible hurdles that so bedevil the administration as to prevent the Government from addressing in a visionary and principled manner Jamaica's already encouraged exit from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? We are paying for the upkeep of an institution that could serve as a catalyst for a new way of seeing ourselves in the global village. The traditional binding forces within the Commonwealth Caribbean have receded. West Indies cricket and the University of the West Indies have gone in different directions. What, then, is to excite the young mind within CARICOM to remove the settled perception of a talk shop which constantly fails to implement decisions reached?

lead gang buster

The heads of government of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda see Jamaica's prime minister as the lead gang buster within the region. Beyond that, within what justice structure do they envisage that the gangs are to be busted? Are we to continue our dependence on an external court to assist us in the gang busting? Any reasoned and meaningful consideration of security matters, of necessity, imports the question of the administration of justice within the specific cultural setting. Judges ought not to be divorced from an understanding of the development plans and programmes, including the projections for the justice system.

We are left to wonder whether those elements even crossed the minds of those heads of government who managed to turn up at Rose Hall as they deliberated on the grave security issues and the gang busting that confronts us as a region. Jamaica's security minister would perhaps be the first to advise us: Don't hold your breath!

A.J. Nicholson is opposition spokesman on justice. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com