Gordon Robinson | The system is rotten, it requires overhaul

Jamaicans’ vulnerability to entrenched colonial brainwashing, aggravated by 60 years of failure to begin remedial education, affects every strata of society.

So, Jamaica Observer reported (May 30) that eminent Counsel K.D. Knight mounted a solo protest against declaring allegiance to the King. Good on him.

Prevented from sitting during the opening of court because he found “God Save the King” offensive (as do I), K.D. announced “Your Honour, I won’t be in here for the opening of the court at any time.”

Observer quoted him on his rationale: “God save the King sounds like a prayer. When I pray, I pray earnestly… I don’t think that if I’m not praying earnestly that [The King] be saved, I should do so.”

I couldn’t agree more.

But, when tackled on the obvious incongruity between that position and his continuing as “King’s Counsel” the Observer reported “He explained that there’s no other appropriate or acceptable way, at this time, of addressing senior lawyers and said he would have no problems being referred to as simply senior attorney.”

There it is. Right there! Many can see the irony between “there’s no other appropriate or acceptable way of addressing senior lawyers” and “he would have no problems being referred to as simply senior attorney.” But, that aside, why not renounce the Title? I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts K.D. (and all other Jamaican KCs) has never been asked by any Monarch for his/her counsel. Return the misconceived “honour”. Return the silk gown that only suggests a subservient mindset.

What’s an “appropriate or acceptable way of addressing senior…” architects, engineers, journalists, mechanics, gardeners, nurses, teachers or policemen? Why are lawyers different? Why do “senior” lawyers need any Title let alone one steeped in British tradition? Can we abandon the Monarch while retaining his anachronistic titles? Why can’t lawyering status come via quality of work rather than seniority or title?

After 60 years, it’s time to honour our own Jamaican identity based on Jamaican culture, hard work, productivity and integrity. We’ve suffered centuries of stolen, brutalized and lynched self-esteem. But we endured and survived. For what? To continue glorifying former masters’ lifestyles, cultures and traditions?

C’mon man!

Speaking of integrity, that’s a concept defined in Westminster Governance as whatever Parliament says it is. This is rooted in fundamental Westminster principle of Parliamentary sovereignty which arises from Westminster’s origin as a strategy to protect the Monarchy from revolting land barons. Westminster was a sop to marauding land barons. It was never meant to further the interests of ordinary subjects.

Westminster was created by a treaty between King and Barons. Accordingly it wasn’t constrained in any way. So whenever I hear British Judges speak of British “constitutional law” I chuckle because, in reality, it doesn’t exist. The British “Constitution” is a series of airy-fairy British traditions cemented by handshakes among “gentlemen”. It changes with every Act of Parliament passed at Westminster.

Jamaica is governed by a written constitution that crafts Jamaica’s legal and governance framework. No Government or Parliament can operate outside that framework. Yet Jamaican parliamentarians seem to foster fantasies of enjoying the parliamentary sovereignty vested in colonial masters.

So Jamaican Parliamentarians are writing and reviewing their own job descriptions and code of conduct after most refused to sign a code of conduct drafted by the independent Integrity Commission (IC). Excuses put forward by Ministers for not signing are deserving of PM’s caustic characterization of citizens who took him at his word that “Very soon this position of a human being exchanging cash and so; that is going to disappear from the banking system…” The consequential furore brought about Information Guru Robert Morgan’s contradiction: “Cash is always going to be a part of our society” and PM calling critique “stupidness.”

Or maybe he was referencing his own initial remarks. Who knows?

On May 16, ( Defend, Defend, Defend), in criticising PNP’s reflexively supporting the unsupportable I quoted Lisa Hanna’s social media post on the subject “As a political party, we represent so much more than ourselves.

Those who ‘fall from grace’ ought to take some time to self-reflect rather than wait on the usual nine-day wonder to pass, hoping everyone forgets.

If you are one of the leaders in the organization’s engine that seek government and your integrity doesn’t tell you to resign how must the country trust our decision-making to take ownership of not only when we are right but, importantly, when we are wrong?

If leadership is to be respected, it should lead by example.”

The principle also applies to JLP. This situation isn’t anywhere near as egregious as the attacks on Press Freedom and the dignity of women - the subject of her post. But the principle of leading by example and admitting when you are wrong applies to all leaders.

In this case it seems obvious PM was careless in his initial choice of words but stubbornly refused to admit any flaw when tackled. He preferred to call criticism “stupidness”. That fell well short of leadership by example but was another example of Westminster programming MPs to believe they are better than constituents; unrestrained by constitutional law; and can do no wrong.

We see more of the same in the contretemps surrounding Codes of Conduct. After IC delivered its Code of Conduct to Party Leaders asking for signatures on behalf of cabinet/shadow cabinet, ten Opposition members signed but no Government Minister complied. Robert Morgan complained it wasn’t sent to him personally. Marlene Malahoo-Forte objected to IC publishing names. She rebuked IC “instead of requesting a formal meeting with either Cabinet or the parliamentary body, they have gone all over the place with a shaming approach …” Is she admitting refusal to sign is a shameful act?

That’s the condescending attitude of entitlement Westminster injects into parliamentarians. An independent commission empowered by law to ensure integrity in public life sends a Code of Conduct to PM for signature on behalf of cabinet members. Cabinet doesn’t ask for a meeting to clarify concerns. Instead cabinet ignores the request and insists IC beg cabinet for a meeting. This signals clear and present danger to democracy. NOBODY must question, guide, monitor or control Government action. Government will monitor itself. Somebody must be high!

One of The Integrity Commission Act’s expressed principle objectives is to “further, encourage and promote propriety and integrity among persons exercising public functions.” In pursuance of that principal objective IC is expressly mandated to “prepare codes of conduct and other advisory material relating to corruption and guide public bodies in respect of matters within the purview of this Act.”

According to a lengthy IC media release in response to Minister Marlene’s outburst, IC recorded (edited for word count purposes only):

“…IC has administered special training to Members of Cabinet, and Shadow Cabinet between November 9, 2020 and February 15, 2021, and between November 15, 2021 and May 30, 2022, respectively.

“Training took the form of 12 specialized “Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Workshops,” developed by IC for that specific purpose. The idea for the referenced training was raised by MHPM himself when IC’s Executive Director paid a Courtesy Call on him, on June 9, 2020.….

“Minister Malahoo-Forte said IC should ‘request a formal meeting with either Cabinet or the Parliamentary Body.’ IC, however, has already met formally with Cabinet on no less than 10 occasions between November 2020 and February 2021. As previously advised, the purpose of each of those meetings was to administer the very training the Minister has now unwittingly conceded should be the forerunner to issue of IC’s Code of Conduct. Regarding meeting formally with ‘the Parliamentary Body,’ IC’s [Director] Ryan Evans already met with the Speaker of the House [on] June 8, 2022. By way of letter, dated June 28, 2022, and a reminder letter issued May 30, 2023, Mr. Evans confirmed with the Speaker, and Senate President, IC’s preparedness to administer to Parliamentarians the same training received by Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. IC [awaits] response from the Speaker.

“While IC awaits word from Parliament, it has been delivering its Integrity, Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Workshops to other Jamaica Public Officials. So far, over 45 Public Bodies have benefited from training.”

Nobody says IC is perfect. Like every other institution manned by humans, it errs. But, instead of rational, cooperative approach to a Commission legislated as independent, Government prefers to vilify the IC; prepare its own code of conduct; and further, encourage and promote its own integrity?

No reputable standup comedian would use material like this. No amount of satire can do this justice. It’s too incredible.

The system is rotten. It requires overhaul. Removing the King’s name but keeping his institutions and indoctrination is a waste of time and effort.

Peace and Love.

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