LETTER OF THE DAY - Golding's dubious distinction
Published:Thursday | May 13, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
On Tuesday, the country listened as our prime minister, Bruce Golding, attempted to make a most duplicitous, disingenuous and dubious distinction between his administration and his party.
According to Mr Golding, "What we have, therefore, is a dispute regarding the application of the Treaty." The parties to this dispute - to my knowledge - are the United States government, represented by that country's Department of Justice, and the Jamaican Government, represented by our own Ministry of Justice.
If that is the case, the prime minister expects us to believe that he, in his role as leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), sanctioned the retaining of a law firm to intercede with US authorities in regard to a dispute to which the JLP was not a party. What was the JLP's interest in this 'treaty dispute'? What would provide them sufficient motivation to expend financial resources to intervene on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the accused?
What do you expect us to believe?
The prime minister further expects the Jamaican people to believe that a reputable US law firm would accept a retainer and a foreign government as a client without any assurances that the Government had indeed retained their services. And further, that this law firm would have offered and been allowed to attend a scheduled meeting with State and Justice Department officials under the mistaken impression that Harold Brady was acting for the Government - an impression no doubt reinforced by the solicitor general's discussions with the firm about issuing a post-meeting statement.
The prime minister's statement to Parliament has left more questions than it has provided answers. Some of these questions are:
1) What information did the solicitor general provide to Mr Brady, a private citizen not working on behalf of the Government, during their email correspondence in September?
2) Who led Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to believe that Mr Brady was acting for the Government of Jamaica?
3) Is it lawful for a citizen to misrepresent the Jamaican Government?
4) Why was Manatt, Phelps & Phillips - a law firm not retained to act on behalf of either party to this treaty dispute - invited and allowed to attend a meeting of State and Justice Department officials?
5) Why did the solicitor general choose to discuss issuing a release after the meeting with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a law firm not retained to act on behalf of either party?
This issue is no clearer and the waters surrounding it no less murky for the prime minister's statement. What is clear, however, is that when Mr Golding told Parliament that "the Government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever in relation to any extradition matter other than deploying the resources that are available within the Attorney General's Department", his words did not meet the highest standards of truth and accountability that we should expect from our leaders.
I am, etc.,
ANTHONY SMITH