The opposition People's National Party (PNP) says it is awaiting the written reasons for today's decision of the Court of Appeal, regarding the status of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn, to determine its next steps.
The Court of Appeal today overturned a Constitutional Court's decision, clearing the way for Llewellyn to resume duties as DPP.
The court ruled in favour of the Government, stating that the lower court was wrong to rule that one of the constitutional changes rushed through Parliament last year increasing the retirement age for her post to 65 did not apply to Llewellyn.
In a media release Friday afternoon, the PNP said it respects the Appeal Court's decision, but reiterated its reasons for the court challenge.
"The Government's enactment of constitutional legislation without any consultation with the Opposition on a matter concerning a particularly sensitive office, coupled with the unprecedented haste to pass it through Parliament without proper review or any prepared debate, amounted to a pernicious abuse of power, inimical to good governance in a constitutional democracy," Opposition Spokesperson on Justice Donna Scott Mottley said in the media statement.
She added that "the Government's approach was all the more egregious given the constitutional reform process that was then underway, which was completely sidestepped by this rushed constitutional change."
"We await receiving the written reasons for the decision of the Court of Appeal, and we will make a determination as to any next steps once we have had an opportunity to review those reasons," she said.
In April, the Constitutional Court ruled that the amendment in the Constitution in July last year to raise the age of retirement for the DPP and the Auditor General from 60 to 65 was valid.
That aspect was called Section 2(1).
However, the court struck down Section 2(2) of the amendment, which it said gave Llewellyn the power to elect to remain on the job. It declared the provision “unconstitutional”.
The appeal court agreed with the lower court that the law was not passed for an "improper purpose" and that it was a valid amendment of the Constitution.
But the court said Justices Sonya Wint-Blair, Simone Wolfe-Reece, and Justice Tricia Hutchinson Shelly "fell into error" in ruling that Section 2 (2) did not apply to Llewellyn because it allegedly gave her powers she did not have, that she had already benefited from an extension and that the approach to changing the law violated the consultation process between the prime minister and the opposition leader.
The court said that the test used by the lower court was "problematic" and "appeared to be a misunderstanding of the law".
"Section 2 (2) is a transitional provision concerning the incumbent DPP and the words 'elect to retire ' should be construed to mean to elect to apply for early retirement. That is, before attaining the new retirement age of 65 years," read Justice Straw, one of appeal court's most senior judges.
"Upon promulgation of the amending Act, the incumbent DPP automatically benefitted from the increased retirement age by virtue of Section 2 (1) . Section 2(2) did not add to that benefit and is, therefore, not unconstitutional or inconsistent with 2(1)."
Lead judge Straw, along with Justices Kissock Laing and Vivene Harris, heard the appeal.
Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com [2] or editors@gleanerjm.com [3].