My kingdom for a don

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

It took just six little words for the entire house of cards to come tumbling down.

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

Initiative? For the uninitiated, "initiative" means plan, scheme, project, enterprise or programme. So this thing that you sanctioned, Bruce, this "initiative" was a plan. It was your plan. You sanctioned it. It was your plan that a private lawyer, acting for your political party, should interfere with the Government of Jamaica's (GOJ's) international bilateral business by trying to lobby the US government to withdraw an extradition request for a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) strongman.

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

So, after all the bobbing and weaving, all the obfuscation and misdirection, after all the weapons of mass distraction, this was YOUR scheme. You sanctioned it. It was your scheme to allow a private lawyer, retained by your party with your specific approval, to try to induce the solicitor general (SG) for Jamaica to employ a JLP lobbyist to work for the Government of Jamaica as window dressing in order to accomplish the party's narrow objective. You have now freely admitted that it would be a serious conflict of interest for Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) to act on behalf of both the JLP and the Government. But you have sanctioned your party's private lawyer's approach to the SG to create exactly that conflict.

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

And, when you (or, if not you, the prime minister of Jamaica) knew that the SG was "considering" engaging a lobbyist that you knew was working for the JLP, what did you do to warn the SG of the imminent ethical catastrophe which was about to engulf him? Nothing! Nada! Zip! Zero!

And please don't further insult the nation with incredible protestations of your ignorance of the events. The SG reported to the attorney general (AG) and she must have reported to you. After all, this was your pet project all along. You were comfortable with the JLP's lobbyist being invited to attend a confidential meeting between the GOJ's SG and officials of the Department of State. You did nothing to make the SG any the wiser as to who MPP represented.

Or was he? Did he really invite a lobbyist whose client's identity was a mystery to him to such a sensitive meeting? He says he thought that MPP was there as at least a prospective GOJ lobbyist. But, if they were not yet GOJ lobbyists, who did the SG think they were representing when they were introduced by the JLP's lawyer? Or did he think MPP was just trying to hustle a job? Puh-leeeeeeze!! Lawyers like MPP don't hustle jobs. They act only when retained. If the SG doesn't know this, he is either incompetent or still at the stage of wiping away mother's milk dribbling from the side of his mouth.

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

For whom was MPP recorded as acting when attending that notorious meeting of nations? One thing is for certain: no one from Jamaica said they were acting for the JLP. Why? Because, had anyone said so, MPP would have been excluded by the State Department and the Department of Justice officials. Only persons representing governments are permitted, by US law, to attend such meetings.

Does our SG, who came to office on the sacrificial altar of an entire Public Services Commission, know this rule so fundamental to his mission? If not, he is either incompetent, or has changed his name from Benjamin Button. The MPP representative was introduced to the US officials by the SG. In what capacity did the SG tell the US officials that MPP attended? Observers? Unlikely. Why? Because they wouldn't have been permitted to stay. Observers aren't allowed at such meetings.

Furthermore, the AG has publicly contradicted the SG's assertion that they were observers only. She has publicly stated that they performed a most useful role in that they prevented the US officials from "pulling the wool" over the SG's eyes. How old is this SG? Twelve?

So, Bruce, your sanction resulted in JLP lobbyists attending a meeting between nations. When you learned of it, whether soon afterwards or later, you failed to take a single step to stop the rot.

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

Up to May 11, you could only find one thing wrong with your programme - the programme you sanctioned. You now say the wrong was the JLP's lawyer representing to MPP that he was acting for the GOJ. That is all you found wrong with the entire sorry episode? So, it wasn't wrong for your party (through its instructions to its lawyer) to try to induce the SG into a damaging conflict of interest and duty?

It wasn't wrong for your party's lobbyists to crash a confidential meeting from which they should have been excluded? It wasn't wrong for you to omit to warn the US government officials that they oughtn't to be accepting repeated contact by MPP as GOJ lobbyists? Wasn't it wrong for a political party to hire lobbyists to gain access to the corridors of US governmental power essentially on the pretence (which the leader of the JLP either expressly condoned or failed to prevent) that they represented the GOJ? Did the JLP leader get updates from the JLP's lawyer, general secretary or other party officials regarding the lobbyist's activities? Did the JLP leader feel that the prime minister should be told?

Did the prime minister see no ethical dilemma created by this disgraceful interference with the GOJ's official international business as a direct result of a scheme sanctioned by the JLP leader? Are political party contributions properly used for this sort of enterprise, or were these dedicated funds from interested party members?

"Mr Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative."

So, it was part of your enterprise that the JLP general secretary should be economical with the truth in his recent public statement on the issue when he emphatically declared that the SG "has had no further contact with the firm since that encounter in December". But, you now say that "in discussions between the solicitor general and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips following the meeting with the State and Justice Departments, it was suggested that a draft release be prepared on the outcome of the meeting. Email correspondence ensued between the solicitor general and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on the contents of the release, but the issuing of the release was eventually not pursued". Should Jamaica believe the prime minister, or the JLP general secretary?

Who was MPP working for in crafting that release? Everybody admits that this meeting was to discuss the extradition dispute. So, any "release prepared on the outcome of the meeting" would perforce be one to be issued by the GOJ on the GOJ's business. Work done by MPP in the drafting of this proposed release could only be work done for the GOJ. Village lawyers believe that "contract" means there must be a formal written document. Real lawyers know that once you use someone's services, there is a contract for those services.

Whatever the formalities, it's now clear beyond peradventure that the situation that you assert would be the source of a serious ethical conflict did in fact arise, as MPP was contracted by both the JLP and the GOJ and provided specific services to both.

Bruce, your pathetic attempt at tit for tat using the Storytella saga is incredibly nonsensical. There was no dispute in that case, only a clear and egregious breach of the extradition treaty. But, more important, the US breach in that case came AFTER the minister of justice signed the Authority to Proceed on the extradition request; AFTER the matter had been fully ventilated in the Jamaican courts between the proper parties; AFTER a Jamaican court had ordered his extradition; and AFTER Storytella was extradited. The contrived argument has a head-in-the-sand aura to it reminiscent of the "Holocaust never happened" claim by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmawhackjob.

Do you remember your general secretary's statement, Bruce?

"The solicitor general and the team that accompanied him met with representatives of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips at Mr Brady's invitation. The discussions were exploratory and were focused on alternative approaches that have been taken in similar treaty disputes with the US. The solicitor general made it clear that the Government of Jamaica saw no need at that stage to engage their services, but would be prepared to consider doing so should the need arise."

When were you planning to tell the SG that the GOJ could NEVER retain MPP because they were already acting for the JLP with your approval?

You knew all along MPP had been retained by the JLP. Why didn't you put a stop to their persistent attempts to get the SG to formalise their relationship with the GOJ? MPP was part of your plan. The leader of the JLP must have known what they were doing. You must have known. But the prime minister failed to warn any US government official that MPP wasn't acting on behalf of the GOJ. If the SG is to be believed, the PM also failed to let him in on that little secret.

You knew all along that the JLP had retained MPP. You now say: "The engagement of lobbyists to act on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or corporations is a well-known practice in the United States governed by law. There is absolutely nothing illegal or surreptitious about it." So why didn't you come clean with Jamaica when the issue was first raised in Parliament? Why not tell us (on March 16 or on March 18 when the prime minister said he learned that the JLP leader's sanctioned lobbyist had met with the SG and with US government officials) that the JLP had retained MPP?

If there is nothing illegal or surreptitious, why hide the truth? Did you deliberately intend to mislead the Jamaican people? Or was it an accident?

And, having forced this bitter, poisoned meal down our throats, you have the unmitigated gall to accuse Harold Brady of mis-representation. Clearly, you have nothing but contempt for the people you say you represent. Or, maybe it is that the prime minister respects Jamaica but the JLP leader and MP for West Kingston respects only West Kingston.

In that event, I strongly urge you to resign as prime minister and concentrate fully on your excellent representation of West Kingston. Since you seem intent on surrendering your kingdom for a don, do it quickly, Bruce, before we regurgitate that meal.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.