We mishandled DPP, AuG matter, admits official

A very senior member of the Andrew Holness-led administration has admitted that the Government “dropped the ball” with its handling of the amendment to the Constitution to increase the age limit for the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and the auditor general (AuG).

The concession came after four days of heated clashes, the first of which erupted last Tuesday as the Government tabled, debated and passed the amendments all in one House sitting, to the chagrin of the Opposition.

“We had enough time. There was sufficient time to properly do this,” lamented the official, who spoke with The Sunday Gleaner on condition of anonymity to avoid sanction for speaking on the matter without authorisation.

The official said, too, that the public row between the incumbent DPP, Paula Llewellyn, and Senior Deputy DPP Kathy-Ann Pyke has roots in the administration’s “mishandling” of the matter.

“What we have done is to plunge the high constitutional office of the DPP into political cass-cass because some people just would not listen and have refused to listen to wisdom that they themselves do not possess,” said the official, who has witnessed some of the discussions surrounding the matter.

“Every time you say anything to a particular group of persons in this administration and they do not like it, they shop around for a view to give them comfort for their bad actions,” the official added.

Without any prior notice, the Government last week introduced the amendments to the country’s supreme law, pushing to 65 the age of retirement for the heads of the two offices.

The current retirement age for both offices is 60.

On Friday, lawyers for two opposition lawmakers wrote to Governor General Sir Patrick Allen, urging him not to green-light the amendments.

The letter was dispatched to King’s House on behalf of Phillip Paulwell, leader of opposition business in the House of Representatives, and his Senate counterpart, Peter Bunting.

The Upper House voted to approve the measure on that same day.

Lawmakers on the government side used their majority to approve the amendment in the Lower House on Tuesday despite strong objections from the parliamentary Opposition.

The letter, written by the law firm Hylton Powell, appears to be a last-ditch attempt to block implementation of the changes.

The attorneys disclosed that they have instructions to file a constitutional claim in court if the bill is enacted “in the present terms”, arguing that it would breach Jamaica’s supreme law “in various respects”.

They argued that the amendment would be an attempt to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed procedure for the extension of the tenures of incumbent DPPs “and worse, the exercise of constitutional power for an improper use”.

“In the circumstances, we invite Your Excellency and the Government to undertake to not assent to or bring into operation the proposed constitutional amendment with respect to the director of public prosecutions until the determination of the impending litigation,” they wrote.

The legislation came just before Gordon House broke for its summer recess, a situation Opposition Leader Mark Golding argued was not satisfactory.

Constitutional amendment

“We object to what is happening here today with this constitutional amendment, which has been brought here without prior notice to us, without any consultation with us,” Golding said in the House of Representatives last Tuesday.

“Furthermore, the Constitutional Reform Committee, which is dealing with the reform of the constitution, has not been seized with this matter. It has not been discussed there. They have been bypassed with this particular amendment,” he argued, adding that it is a “dark day for our country”.

He then noted the possibility that the Opposition would challenge the matter in court.

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, who piloted the bill in the Lower House, argued that the Cabinet mandated him to deal with the issue and “once I got it, I really pushed and got it done immediately”.

“I’m very, very disappointed that the Opposition and others should impute any motive why this amendment was done so quickly. It has been on the cards from 2016-2017,” he said at a post-Cabinet press briefing last Wednesday.

However, Chuck did not explain why the constitutional change was not pursued in 2020 when the DPP’s tenure was extended then by three years, when the Government could have granted five additional years but opted for a lower number, and why the issue was not allowed to go with the other changes being contemplated by the Constitutional Reform Committee.

The controversy over the amendment intensified late last week when Pyke urged the Prime Minister Andrew Holness to halt the Senate vote and cause an investigation into the operations of the DPP’s office.

In the now-public letter, she cited concerns among prosecutors and a lack of confidence in Llewellyn’s leadership going forward.

“I am humbly asking for a reconsideration of this proposed amendment, as in all the circumstances, it would be manifestly unjust and unreasonable, for Ms Paula Llewellyn, KC, to be given an extension for another term,” the veteran prosecutor said in her letter.

But Llewellyn hit back in a six-page response, slamming Pyke as “bitter”.

She acknowledged that Pyke is a “brilliant” and “very experienced” prosecutor, but said her “professional decorum and behaviour over the years has, on occasion, left much to be desired”.

“Pyke has always been bitterly resentful, extremely upset and expressed feelings of hurt and disrespect to me and other members of staff because she has not been placed to head a unit,” said Llewellyn in her rebuttal.

She disclosed that Pyke is now being investigated by the office’s human resource department for several alleged breaches.

The Holness administration official said the “untenable” situation between the DPP and one of her deputies may not have happened if the Government had sought to discuss the issue with the Opposition and the public before pushing ahead.

“Llewellyn has been a fearless advocate. Yes, she has invited controversy but she has never shied away from it. It is a real pity that her tenure could be coloured by something she does not control. We owe it to our public servants to ensure processes are handled properly,” the official said.

Meanwhile, some prosecutors were left in shock over the public spat that has developed between two senior prosecutors.

“Persons are just taken aback in terms of what has transpired. There is a lot of tension in terms of how things will unfold. People are being very cautious in what they are doing,” said an employee of the Office of the DPP.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com