State attorneys slam PNP’s objection to extension of DPP’s tenure

Government lawyers have labelled the reasons proffered by the People’s National Party (PNP) in its objection to the recent amendments to the Jamaican Constitution, allowing Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn to remain in office for an extra two years, as “a complete stretch” of the reality.

Allan Wood, KC, one of the lawyers representing the attorney general, during his submission yesterday in the Full Court, described as “unreasonable” the inference by the party that the amendments “somehow interfere with the functions of the director or makes her subject to political interference”.

Additionally, Wood asked the three-judge panel of justices Sonya Wint Blair, Simone Wolfe Reece and Tricia Hutchinson Shelly to reject the PNP’s reasons for opposing the extension, noting that it was a radical interpretation of the Jamaican Constitution.

Leader of Opposition Business in the House Phillip Paulwell and his Senate counterpart, Peter Bunting, had filed the claim while contending that the amendment was done for an improper purpose.

The claimants also sought declarations, including that the DPP should not be allowed to remain in office beyond September when her 2020 extension ended, and that the amendment is unconstitutional, null and void.

In July, the Constitution was amended to move the retirement ages of the DPP and the auditor general from 60 to 65.

Llewellyn, who got a three-year extension in 2020 when she was 60, and whose tenure would have ended in September, was instead extended by a further two years.

Proper procedure

However, Michael Hylton, KC, in his submissions on Monday, argued that the Government did not follow the proper procedure in passing the Constitution Act 2023, which amended sections 96(1) and 121(1).

He said the amendment to Section 96(1) should have followed the proper procedure set out for amendments to entrenched provisions.

“This means that there should have been both a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the House and a three-month period between the introduction of the bill in the Lower House and the commencement of debates, and another three months between the conclusion of the debates and the passing of the bill,” he said.

According to him, the opposition members were not aware of the contents of the bill before it was tabled, and the Government had circumvented the process by not consulting with the Opposition.

Hylton further submitted that Section 2 of the Act, which raised the DPP’s retirement age, was done for an “improper use” and that the Parliament, in enacting Section 2, had breached the separation of powers principle.

Wood, however, argued that the Government’s action was not in conflict with the Constitution as the act was passed in accordance with Section 49 of the Constitution.

“It does not undermine the functions of the director, it does not reduce her tenure, it extends it,” he said. “It is a complete stretch and an unreasonable inference to draw that the mended act somehow interferes with the functions of the director or makes her subject to political interference.”

Wood stressed that “there is nothing in the amended act that brings the director under the direction or control of the political executives or in any way attempts to control or interfere with the discharge of her conscience”.

While denying the argument that the amendment was done for an “improper use”, he said it was done as a part of the Government’s “clear policy”, since 2011, which is to extend the retirement age of all public officers.

According to him, judges should not concern themselves with the motives of the Government and should instead enquire whether the procedures carried out were consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and whether there was interference with the powers of the Office of the DPP.

In the meantime, he argued that there remains in place safeguard via Section 96, Subsection 4, which allows for the removal of the DPP from office if there is an inability to discharge the proper functions of the office.

The matter will continue today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com