Skip to main content

Still Not a Shackle

On November 26, 2007 the Gleaner published an editorial entitled “When the Constitution is not a Shackle” addressing the reported calls for Stephen Vasciannie to withdraw his application to be appointed Solicitor General and the buzz about the plans by the Prime Minister to fire the members of the Public Services Commission (PSC).

Displaying apparent presentiment at the time, the editor encouraged Vasciannie and the PSC to seek the courts protection in the event that their recommendation of Vasciannie was rejected and/or they were fired. The stout assertion was made that “fundamental principles, particularly, the notion of the Constitution as the supreme law, are at stake”. Weeks later both incidents occurred.

Recently RJR reported in relation to the Daryl Vaz v Abe Dabdoub case that Prime Minister Bruce Golding is determined that Mr. Dabdoub will not gain entry to the House of Representatives by way of the courts. The following comments have been attributed to the Prime Minister:

“I'm not going to allow anybody to sit in Parliament who was rejected by the people at the polls purely on the basis of some legal or constitutional technicality”

This statement should be cause for concern among all. The Prime Minister plays no role in determining who sits in Parliament save for any part he plays in the selection of members of his own party to run as candidates. The maxim “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people” does not mean that anyone who is voted for by the people is entitled to be the people’s representative. If the candidate is not qualified to run, then he is not entitled to be the people’s representative.

The Constitution of Jamaica is the supreme law of Jamaica. All laws must be made in accordance with the Constitution; and to the extent that they are inconsistent the Constitution will prevail.

Decisions of the court in relation to all laws including Constitutional law must be obeyed. If one fears or anticipates that a decision will be unfavorable, one should not seek to prevent the applicant from exercising his right of appeal. To dismiss it as a “technicality”, suggests that it is meaningless, useless, not worthy of application but worthy of contempt.

Mr. Dabdoub has the legal right to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica. A threat to call general elections in the event Dabdoub files an appeal or succeeds in the Court of Appeal could be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent that process or to extinguish that right. While the Prime Minister has the right to call general elections, it was imprudent to wield it as a big stick to impose, threaten or deny others who wish to stand up for the rule of law.

More fundamentally, the Court of Appeal is the final court in matters relating to election petitions. Golding’s comments could be interpreted not only as prejudging the merits of the appeal but exerting undue influence over the Court of Appeal, especially in light of the growing chorus that a general election is the last thing Jamaica needs at this time.

In his inaugural address at the swearing in as Prime Minister Mr. Golding pledged to curtail the powers of the Executive and strengthen Parliament in his bid to create a framework for good governance. This is laudable; but if the Prime Minister is to be taken at his word and trusted as new and different, he must be seen to respect the laws of Jamaica. Any acts which are imposed based on the whim of one man without regard for the rule of law are liable to be viewed as acts of dictatorship or tyranny. For as the referenced Gleaner editorial asked:

“If the Constitution is not a shackle to prime ministerial (mis)behaviour, what then is sacrosanct under the law?”

Comments

Anonymous said…
The saying 'Much power doth make thee mad' is fitting in this circumstance. No wonder the society is so lawless , no respect for the law of the land by the PM amounts to suicide .
Unknown said…
Hi Dr. Paul:

Just read your blog for the first time, after reading the Sunday papers today. I found the articles most informative and interesting.

Keith Bishop

Popular posts from this blog

"Declaration" Not "Determination"

Both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have conveniently confused calls for declaration of citizenship status by Members of either House with the determination of questions as to membership of either House. The Chief Justice of Jamaica has determined that individuals who have renewed their US passports and travelled thereon are disqualified from being validly elected or appointed as a Member of either House. Proponents of the impotence of the Speaker, in the matter of requiring a declaration by individual members, have sought to rely on Section 44 (1) of the Constitution which states: Any question whether - a. any person has been validly elected or appointed as a member of either House; or b. any member of either House has vacated his seat therein or is required, under the provisions of subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 41 of this Constitution, to cease to exercise any of his functions as a member, shall be determined by the Supreme Court ...

Communication Error!

Jamaica Gleaner Contributor, Martin Henry has written an interesting article entitled “Victory for the rule of law” published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 . In his last paragraph Henry stated: " A troubled citizen's concerns about the legitimacy of laws passed in the past with the participation of MPs who may have been in Daryl Vaz's dual-allegiance position was published as The Letter of the Day by The Gleaner last Wednesday [April 16]. Lawyer Dr Paul Ashley made a great deal out of the same issue when we both appeared on the TV programme Impact on that same day. The Constitution dissolves these fears in the wisely anticipatory provision of Section 51 (2): "The presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings." Interpreting legal provisions is an exercise fraught with dangers, especially if one is not acquainted with the rules governing interpretation. Without...

DEA: Book Review #1

Three book reviews of   "Dudus: The Extradition of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don" have been published; two in The Jamaica Observer and one in the Jamaica Gleaner. The first was by Rev Dr. Devon Dick entitled 'Devon Dick | Dudus Revisited By Dr Paul Ashley ' published in the Jamaica Gleaner Thursday, September 13, 2018: "Recently, Dr Paul Ashley, attorney-at-law and political commentator, published Dudus: The Extradition of Jamaica's #1 Drug Don, which recounts the "machinations of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) to delay and frustrate the extradition of Jamaica's premier drug lord, Christopher 'Dudus' Coke." To achieve that goal, Ashley went to primary sources and published transcripts from both the Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and West Kingston commissions of enquiry. There are such documents scattered over the seven chapters. Ashley provides an overview of this watershed 2010 event then examines the confidentiality breach, the delay...