Gordon Robinson | It’s political interference

I know we’re in Silly Season but the latest political putridity crosses every red line ending up in an historic Portland Peninsula.

Jamaicans woke up on Friday, April 11 to breaking news that the leaders of both houses of parliament had written to the newly installed Integrity Commission (IC) Chairman expressing their “concerns” regarding an IC employment decision. Before detailing these “concerns” the parliamentary leaders were at pains to say what they were NOT doing. Apparently they were NOT:

(a) questioning the employee’s professional qualifications;

(b) questioning any individual’s constitutional right of association;

(c) seeking to interfere in IC’s operations.

Then they proceeded to question the employee’s constitutional right of association by implying it should have adverse employment consequences and interfere with IC’s operations by “[registering] on behalf of our government parliamentary colleagues our serious concern about [the Employee’s] appointment….at the Integrity Commission AND HIS POSSIBLE PERMANENT APPOINTMENT (my emphasis).”

You know that, if someone, especially a politician, takes the trouble to tell you what they aren’t doing then that’s exactly what they intend to do. Government Parliamentarians, who have maintained a hard-on for IC for more than two years while that anti-corruption agency struggled to certify PM’s Statutory Declarations, wasted no time sending a subliminal message that the new Chairman is someone who might obey Government’s dictates.

Because, make no mistake about it, that very public letter, the kindest description of which would be intemperate, written as it was directly to the new IC Chairman, essentially telling her who not to employ and why, was so much more an insult to the Chairman than it could ever be to the employee. Previously Government MPs had “concerns” about an IC employee whose resumé included working for Peter Phillips but they contented themselves with grumbling to each other in parliamentary committees.

No such written insult was ever sent to Seymour Panton!

So why are they doing this to Carol Lawrence-Beswick, a Jamaican of unshakeable integrity who has served her country with distinction for decades? I’ve known Carol for 50 years. We met in Barbados as law students. I’ve followed her progress since then and we’ve been in touch on and off (as much as a hermit like me can stay in touch) so posted the following on Tweeter on March 2:

“Congratulations to my law classmate Carol Lawrence-Beswick on her appointment as IC Chair. Her life has been commitment to justice, fairness and discipline including as wife and mother. I expect her to bring her fine intellect, extensive experience and supreme sensitivity to a new task. Go with God my friend.”

A month later before she even had a proper opportunity to put family photos on her desk and get keys to the office rest room, Government does THIS to her. Why? Does Government believe it now has a lackey as IC Chair? Or is Government so inept (or anxious) that it doesn’t realize it’s creating the impression that it thinks she’s a lackey?

What exactly was the basis of these “concerns” that were so fundamentally dangerous to IC operations that Government felt compelled to intervene? It appears that the employee is (horror of horrors) a friend of Dayton Campbell. The political leaders requested IC Chair’s intervention for a “prompt and thorough investigation” into their concerns. They paraphrased the well known principle: “justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly and demonstrably done”.

This must be the Guy Lombardo Show!

Welcome to polytricks Jamaican style where natural justice is the reason advanced to demand that an employer dispense with natural justice in making employment decisions.

So politicians’ friends are disqualified from public service? Performance must be anticipated or adjudged likely to be unethical before a single job related decision is made? No need to actually do something wrong before a challenge?

Holy Premature Ejaculation Batman!

By Monday, April 14, the new IC Chair responded in exactly the terms that I would expect from an individual of her strength of character, intellect and integrity. I’m certain she read between the lines and understood that her own reputation was as much at stake as the employee’s. All lawyers learn Latin as a foundation to the profession so her four page reply can be best summarised by that well known Latin maxim “Futchenzee Offenzee!”

She pointed out, politely, that IC could only “investigate” as the IC Act permitted and she’d be happy to “investigate” their concerns as soon as they produced “cogent” evidence of wrongdoing. Just in case JLP lawmakers aren’t aware let me advise that a wedding photo or social media post is NOT evidence of unethical conduct or a real likelihood of future misconduct.

Of course this didn’t deter Government leaders who responded on Tuesday. They insisted they didn’t wish to embark on an unending series of responses and counter-responses before instigating exactly that with a counter-response citing “legal precedent” for their “concerns”.

Sigh.

Apologies for the following personal story but it’s relevant to the issue of public service especially by persons asked to chair sensitive institutions. Thirty-five years ago I was asked to chair a high profile Statutory Authority. Following in the footsteps of a predecessor, I set two pre-conditions to acceptance: “Don’t pay me and don’t help me do the work.”

On arrival, staff advised me that unavoidable Regulations mandated I be paid a meeting fee. I instructed that all payments be sent directly to the Women’s League at St. Margaret’s Church. Early in my tenure there was industrial disruption in the industry. When I arrived for a regular board meeting, a telephone message was waiting for me. Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister (with personal industry connections) had convened a meeting of Stakeholders at his Ministry that morning. My attendance was required. The message went in the wastebasket. Much later, a new portfolio Minister was assigned so I resigned to allow him to name his own Chairman.

About 10 years afterwards I was recalled this time as Executive Chairman. The Finance Minister who I didn’t know (then) and who didn’t know me called and set up an exploratory meeting. He asked me, since it was an executive post, how much I should be paid. I told him that, if I was allowed to continue my legal practice, my “salary” would be a token. He reluctantly agreed after trying to get me to take standard government allowances which I steadfastly refused.

When I came home and told The Old Ball and Chain there was hell and powder house. Ernie Smith reports:

“Elsada no mash up di one boot inna mi head

Elsada a money fi fix it and me caan’ buy bread.

Elsada di money well short and me know it hard

but no badda wid di floor show

no badda wid di floor show

no badda wid di floor show

inna di tenement yard!

She predicted I’d spend all my time on the new job and ruin my law practice. She was right. But, then, she’s always right. I know this because she tells me so. Very soon after I started, the Computer Wiz fell gravely ill and spent a week in ICU. The Head of Admin advised I was eligible to claim under the Agency’s health insurance. I refused to do so because I’d only just started there. Old BC was livid!

It wasn’t long before a friend, also a cabinet member (different portfolio), called: “Gordon, I have just the man you should employ. He’s a genius.”

“No problem” I replied “send me his resumé.” That resumé joined the earlier telephone message in the trash. Then a letter arrived from the State Minister (another friend) requiring quarterly meetings with me and Department Heads to discuss operations. That was filed away. I didn’t reply. No meeting was ever convened.

Public service jobs can be executed professionally regardless of who your friends are!

After I left I vowed never to accept another public post or represent any government entity as lawyer. Although I’ve occasionally represented politicians in their personal capacities, I’ve kept that vow.

The worst thing you can bring to a sensitive public sector Chairmanship is need for the job. If you do you’re doomed. Good on Carol Lawrence-Beswick for establishing that this job needs her more than she needs it.

What on earth could’ve been the purpose of those clumsy parliamentary letters? And, after that gentle lecture on the facts of life, the double-down? This was unnecessary regardless of “concerns” parliamentarians harboured. Any IC report is subject to Judicial Review. Any ill-founded prosecution should fail. Any unethical prosecution will ground a civil suit for damages. So the purpose of these letters could only be blatant, egregious political interference masquerading as “concerns”.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com