Sore thumbs: did you ever see?

Three blind mice, three blind mice,

See how they run, see how they run,

They all ran after the farmer's wife,

Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,

Did you ever see such a thing in your life,

As three blind mice?

It is not to be believed that Jamaicans here and in the diaspora, and still others in several countries across the globe, who followed the proceedings faithfully right up to the commissioners' 'report' on the extradition enquiry, are not protesting - deep in their hearts.

They are protesting, and lamenting Jamaica slipping deeper, when a report from perhaps the most far-reaching enquiry on our Independence journey, and which should have served as a platform for improving the operations of government, results in an insult to the intelligence of even the least initiated.

Even so, one commentator summed it up as a perfect score - a perfect 10 out of 10. But then, I suppose he could have based that assertion on the finding that all of the 19 government officials/witnesses who had to do with the debacle were innocent of any type of misconduct.

So, I am biased; in our society, as a member of the People's National Party, I am supposed to have an oblique motive. Regardless, my views coincide with that of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce that, sadly, the 58-page script represents a dereliction of duty on the part of two of Her Majesty's counsel, and a labour-relations practitioner.

Let us examine just seven aspects of the script which stand out like seven sore thumbs, and there are more. One can hardly be accused of bias in this regard for, by their very nature, sore thumbs always stand out.

NUMBER ONE:

Who told these three wise men that they had authority to pronounce on whether a person's constitutional rights have been breached? Are they out of their minds? Is that not what the minister of justice for nine months had erroneously presumed to do?

According to Section 25 of the Independence Constitution, replicated in Section 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms: "The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine" if any of the constitutional rights "has been, is being or is likely to be contravened". Who clothed these men with authority constitutionally reserved for the Supreme Court, and which can be divested to no other entity: the prime minister? The next thing that we will hear is that they had the power to sentence people to death.

Mark you! There is anecdotal evidence that one overzealous justice of the peace, sitting in the Petty Sessions Court, thought he had the power to impose such a sentence, until the clerk of the courts advised him otherwise, setting him straight. I wonder whether the commissioners sought the advice of the lawyers the Government paid to advise them. And, if not, who advised Commissioner Irons: his colleagues who, being lawyers, thought that they had the privilege of advising themselves and him?

NUMBER TWO:

When did it come to pass that, in the governance order, 'misconduct' is to be construed as inevitably including 'dishonesty'? When the prime minister wrongfully had the members of the Public Service Commission dismissed for 'misbehaviour', obviously meaning misconduct, what element of dishonesty was imagined?

Is breach of statutory duty on the part of a minister, for example, not misconduct, even though dishonesty or fraud may not be present in his failure to act properly, or otherwise? Would dereliction of duty on the part of commissioners, as asserted by the chamber of commerce, not amount to misconduct; and would we not surely shudder to |think that the chamber would have any element of dishonesty within its contemplation?

And yet, the three wise men concluded that there was no 'misconduct' on the part of anyone in this sordid affair, which has cost Jamaica so dearly.

NUMBER THREE:

Lying on the part of public officials is an abomination to governance practices in any democratic society. The justice minister and Mrs Verna McGaw cannot both be speaking the truth concerning the email copied to Harold Brady, thus debunking the minister's assertions of non-collaboration with JLP functionaries to frustrate the extradition process. There could not have been a finding of "no misconduct" on the part of both of them.

There was no "insufficiency of evidence" on this matter: the minister, at first, owned the document, as she must, and afterwards, seeing the unravelling of the cover-up, she sought to distance herself, asserting that it was a forgery. In the absence of any, or any reasonable, explanation for such forked-tongued evidence, the minister lied under oath. That is buttressed by the unquestionable truth that the contents of the email were known only to the minister.

That is not usual misconduct; it amounts to corrupt practice - dishonesty, even according to the awkward definition put forward in the script. Mrs McGaw should have been specifically and personally exonerated, so that she and her family and acquaintances could enjoy some measure of inner peace. Would Commissioner Irons not agree that good labour relations demand that?

NUMBER FOUR:

The solicitor general and the minister could not both be speaking the truth concerning the presence of the Manatt representative at the State Department meeting in Washington. It was the duty of the commissioners to decide who was lying; they shirked their duty, once again.

Lying is what precipitated the recent resignation of US Congressman Weiner; it is what proved so troublesome and quaking to President Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky affair. In today's democratic governance practices, lying is perhaps the most odious form of misconduct. It unravels all elements of trust, and a "den of liars", according to The Gleaner's poll report, is overwhelmingly fatal to that trust.

NUMBER FIVE:

Even in the absence of any testimony from Harold Brady, the prime functionary in the hiring of Manatt, the three wise men found "sufficient evidence" to conclude that the firm was contracted by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Well, what motive then could the prime minister have had to sanction that route instead of the chaste custom of having the initiative undertaken by the Government? What was the objection to the Government's participation, if the initiative was reasonable, pure and genuine?

That was misconduct on the part of the prime minister - not merely "inappropriate behaviour". And what is more, there was evidence before the tribunal that foreign entities entering into these types of relationships with US lobby firms are obliged to have the permission of the US authorities. Did the commissioners seek to discover whether a Jamaican political party may have deliberately broken the laws of one of our treaty partners?

NUMBER SIX:

"It seems to us that, although late in signing the authority to proceed, the minister acted reasonably in signing it when she did." Well, the three wise men should be advised, since they seem oblivious to the facts, that this "late reasonable" act of the minister directly impacted the loss of at least 74 lives, loss to Jamaica of some $23 billion, burning of police stations in the capital, and our name and reputation plunging precipitously in the international community.

The SEVENTH SORE THUMB is malignant, serving to contaminate the entire process irreversibly: the prime minister unilaterally chose the commissioners and set the terms of reference for an enquiry into issues which substantially included his own conduct. That insidious breach of a hallowed principle of natural justice - being a judge in his own cause - enveloped the workings of the enquiry from beginning to end.

It is true that there were voices of protest from all corners of the society condemning that action by a head of government who even broke his own pledge to consult, at least with the leader of the Opposition, before embarking on the exercise.

In such circumstances, the voices of protest should have been far more strident. And, with respect, the Church, the parliamentary Opposition, civil-society groups, trade unions and private sector organisations, and others should have insisted on a reversal. That approach would be adopted in mature democracies, including seeking a declaration in the Supreme Court that the rights of all Jamaicans were being infringed by the prime minister's unlawful unilateral action. The battering that the country had taken was devastating enough to attract that kind of action, for a clean platform for a new way forward.

In such circumstances also, the three wise men ought to have graciously declined the appointment, since there was so much protestation and unease, including protest on the part of some against perceived politically genetic connection.

We did not insist, and they did not decline; so we and they are forced to live with the consequent discomfiture of that malignant sore thumb which may have helped to drive the final nail into the coffin of this sorry episode, and which, unfortunately for Jamaica, will not be buried any time soon.

And so, I am bound to ask you and every Jamaican: Did you ever see such a thing in your life?

A.J. Nicholson is opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and foreign trade. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.