Funny, in the current imbroglio surrounding the rushed amendment to the Jamaican Constitution, to facilitate the continuing occupation of the office by the current office holder, the DPP is supposed to have decreed, that the Services Commission be brought in to investigate if her senior Deputy, Kathy-Ann Pike, brought the Office into disrepute with her missive, addressed to the Prime Minister, advising the Prime Minister, to approach with caution, the proposal to amend the Constitution, further to extend the term of the current office holder.
Curiously, according to observers and commentators alike, on the face of it, it was not Ms. Pike’s correspondence to the Prime Minister, that brought the office, into disrepute, but the broadside by the DPP’s response, which had the finesse and garrulity of a bellicose market woman.
Madam DPP did not win friends and or influence enemies with her response, as on the face of it, it devolved into character assassination and cheap name-calling, instead of directly addressing the concerns raised by her deputy, in her ‘Open’ letter to the Prime Minister and the Country.
Ms. Pike spoke to systemic deficiencies within the office Of the DPP, under the directorship of the self-proclaimed erstwhile Madam. She spoke to a seeming brain-drain; professional frustration; ‘misuse’ of funds in hiring foreign Lawyers to attend the UK Privy Council, to argue appeals on behalf of the office of the DPP, when there are competent Jamaican lawyers who could appear; prevailing low Staff morale; and a host of tangential issues related to the optimum functioning of the office. Finally, ending by asking that an inquiry be set up to explore the viability of the office of the DPP.
To date, Ms. Llewellyn is yet to address the issues raised in any substantive manner, ergo, any extension to her tenure, under the circumstances, would and must engender the question of Why? And not only why, but question, why was this done in such indecent haste? After all, there’s currently A Constitutional Reform Committee in ‘session’ so why bypass this committee and rush such an important amendment through the parliament; Was this to placate one person’s ego, or were there greater considerations necessitating the rush?
Or, was it about Ms. Llewellyn is best suited for the post, owing to yet unknown particular professional skills-set; Or was it, as has been suggested elsewhere, it was because there are no possible candidates within the DPP’s offices, capable of taking over the reins of this important Constitutional office?
If the answer to the latter, is the affirmative, then, that too like her response to Ms. Pike’s charges, speaks to the managerial and operational skills-set of the now embattled DPP.
If it is, that Ms. Llewellyn, knowing fully well in advance that the mandatory retirement age, was 60, and she having been granted an extension, did not make the necessary facilitations for the smooth transition from her directorship to accommodate another, then that begs the question: was the DPP, in secret dialogue with members of the Political Directorate to further extend her tenure, or to extend the retirement age of the office holder, to facilitate Ms. Llewellyn’s continuing?
The Justice Minister might have given it away when he admitted that the Bill to extend the retirement age, should have been submitted to the Parliament, earlier in the year.
Question: Was Ms. Llewellyn aware of this? Cos if she was, there goes the separation of powers and the line of demarcation, establishing Ms. Llewellyn’s as an independent Arbiter of the Law, and moving her over into the ranks of political hacks.
As for her attack on the character, of Ms. Pike, are there any records of investigations and or disciplinary Queries/Notes/Memos into Ms. Pike’s conduct, as an officer of the DPP’s Office, after complaints were allegedly made by her colleagues, subordinates, or from the bench?
If not, why not? And what exactly did the DPP mean, by styling Ms. Pike as eccentric, was that an attempt to cast her as unbalanced, and if that was the case; why did the DPP knowing all that she did, still, hire Ms Pike on three different occasions? And Was Ms. Pike ever paid a Performance Gratuity, based on evaluation, under the same DPP’s Directorship? And when Ms. Pike was appointed to her current post, was this after another such evaluation?
If the answers to the questions posed above are in the affirmative, then one has to not only question the judgment of the verbose DPP, but one also has to question her honesty and motives, for making the claims, she did.
Now, let’s go back in time, to another era, when the Director of Public Prosecutions, was the learned, but less obnoxious personage of Kent Pantry. Did a young overtly ambitious Paula Llewellyn serve in Pantry’s office? And what was her role, if any, in stoking the rebellion, against Pantry, that eventually led to his ‘retirement’ at 60?
Was there a series of events and presumed confidential discussions, that were leaked to the Media, that riled up DPP staffers against Director Pantry, which led to Llewellyn riding in on a white horse, to save the day as Lady Justice?
Back to the present, as now we have the unseemly tinkering with the Constitution, by those sworn to uphold it. And yes, they will swear on a stack of bibles, that they broke no law(s) in doing so, but in Trumpesque fashion, they seek to sully the reputation of those who oppose their craven use of power on a principled basis, and deify, their anointed one, in their greed and continuing lust for the office they hold.
If Our sources are to be believed, it was not an accident that the Minister Of Constitutional Reform, Marlene Malahoo-Forte, did not pilot the Bill to Amend the Constitution, further empowering Paula Llewellyn thru the House. As our sources assert that she objected to the Bill in principle and on a point of Law and Protocol, resulting in her Ministerial Colleague, Babsy Grange, throwing a hissy-fit and lambasting her for her position. But, she reportedly stood her ground, and not only did not Table the Bill, but when it was eventually tabled by the mealy-mouthed Minister of Justice, Delroy Chuck, she refused to give the Bill her assent. As did, MP from Nothern Trelawny, Tova Hamilton.
Sadly, this DPP has been tone-deaf for some time now, and is so desperate to cling to the relevance the Office of DPP affords her, , all bets are that she will still take up the post, despite the fact that her objectivity and ethics, will be questioned, robbing her of an important tool, needed to effectively discharge the duties of DPP.
And frankly, Ms. Llewellyn, might foolishly console herself, with the misbegotten thought that Kathy-Ann Pike, was the only member of the DPP office who took objection, to her continuing as Director. She and those who appointed and supported her would be asinine to adopt that posture, As they can rest assured, Ms. Pike, acted for a greater good, and clearly was not afraid of the spite, invective and or venom that would have been anticipated. Others, would have factored other considerations into their decisions to refrain from adding their signatures from Ms. Pike’s warning Letter, because of their own considerations.
The problem is this presents a greater problem for the DPP if she were to cowardly remain in the office, despite such pushback. As her subordinates, jurists, the wider public and observers will be second-guessing her every decision, and this would not auger well, for continued faith in her, or the office.
In a civilized Society, after such a public takedown by her own Senior Deputy; the Objection of the Opposition; And Civil-Society, the honorable expectations would be that the candidate withdraws her name from consideration, to save the Government from the invidious position it has fitted itself in.
Alas, and sadly this is Jamaica. But it is instructive to add here, that in a recent random survey conducted by imagesandProfiles.com, Paula Llewellyn was voted one of the Public Servants, the people would like to see the back of.