The case of George Thomas, who alleges abuses by an agency of the Government, caught national attention last week and The Gleaner believes the matter should be investigated, not just in the case of the farmer spouting allegations, but in any other case to ensure that the government is acting in the best interest of its citizens. The opinion is certainly worth another look.

Published July 1, 2021

Public defender should widen NROCC probe

THOUGH NOT directly related, the case of George Thomas brings to mind Chief Justice Bryan Sykes’ wish that someone develops a computer program to transcribe spoken Jamaican Patois into written English. Justice Sykes believes that a program of the kind would enhance efficiency in the courts and, although he did not say this out loud, we believe, a sense among some Jamaicans of being afforded justice.

We do not know how proficient Mr Thomas is at English. However, based on his interview last week with this newspaper, he is obviously an intelligent man, who may have been browbeaten by the arcane and intimidating language of law, and of contracts, into selling his property for less than what he believes to be fair value. If that is indeed the case, Mr Thomas would not be unique. It happens to sophisticated people, who assume that they have a full grasp of the information before them.

In Mr Thomas’ situation, though, the complaint is against an agency of the Jamaican State, the National Road Operating and Constructing Company (NROCC). That is why we welcome that the matter is “under deep scrutiny”by the public defender, Arlene Harrison Henry, as well as her commitment to offer Mr Thomas legal assistance, if required, to protect his interests.

BROADER INVESTIGATION

We, however, also urge Mrs Harrison Henry to proceed – as she suggests she is contemplating – with a broader investigation of NROCC’s acquisition of privately owned land, especially from small stakeholders, for the extension of Highway 2000 between May Pen, Clarendon; and Williamsfield, Manchester – a stretch of 28 kilometres.

This analysis should not only consider whether NROCC paid fair value for the properties, but the strategies and tactics it employed in the acquisitions. For while any bad behaviour uncovered may not be justiciable constitutional breaches, if people were harassed, browbeaten or disrespected, that would be worth being recorded and publicised on two important grounds. Shaming NROCC would be a small recompense for the people who were hurt, and it would serve as a reminder to other state agencies of the obligation of decency and respect they owe to the people they serve.

Mr Thomas lived and farmed in St Toolis, Manchester. His property was in the alignment for the highway extension. Initially, he told The Gleaner, he was advised that his property would be acquired to accommodate the construction of the road. Then an official advised him that the entire property would not be required, only a portion of it. But later, representatives from NROCC returned with the news that the entire property was needed after all.

As part of the process, Mr Thomas reported, he was required to remove the roof of his home. He was left with the impression by these high officials that he had little choice in the matter, or, as Mr Thomas put it in Jamaican Patois: “Im a move by force how im ah talk to mi.” He also felt pressured to act quickly, saying about the official he dealt with: “Wen im come, im jus de pon haste.”

Eventually, Mr Thomas sold his property for J$8 million and was compensated J$825,000 for his crops, after “dem give mi a paper fi read”. That “paper” given to Mr Thomas for his perusal were, presumably, the offer letter and acquisition agreement, which, he concedes, he did not fully understand.

‘LITERACY ISSUES’

Philip Myers, who heads l and acquisition at NROCC, says he knew that Mr Thomas has “literacy issues” when he delivered the offer letter. He denied pressuring Mr Thomas, saying that the document was left for him “to take counsel and to make other considerations that were contained therein”.

It may not be unreasonable for NROCC to have expected Mr Thomas, and whoever else against whom the company was exercising the State’s power of eminent domain, “to take counsel”, by which Mr Myers probably now means hiring lawyers. Which, for rural farm folk, can seem an alien, expensive, and sometimes fraught process.

But there are other considerations to be brought to the table. NROCC, given the Government’s golden share, remains for all intents and purposes a state-controlled entity. Further, Mr Myers observed that Mr Thomas had “literacy issues”. He obviously had difficulty reading the legal document.

A good company, operating in the public’s interest, and seeking a fair deal for all parties, would be expected to exercise patience and ensure that people like Mr Thomas, whatever their limitations in English, have a full and clear grasp of the information in the documents presented. And that should be independent of the counsel that these persons may take. That is basic honesty and decency.

Chief Justice Sykes gets it. “Most of our litigants (in the courts) are Patois speakers,” he said. It is important for justice that they are heard and understood, and that they, too, understand what is being said. The question is whether George Thomas was really afforded that courtesy and right. 

This is a production independent of The Gleaner Company (Media) Limited's newsroom. For feedback: contact the Digital Integration and Marketing Department at Newsletters@gleanerjm.com