Finding the "Truth"

We note with interest the announcement that the government intends to introduce polygraph testing (lie detector) for persons holding sensitive positions in the civil service and security forces. This has been generally regarded as a good move - especially in light of public perception of widespread corruption.

We have no problem with the idea. It is the implementation that will provoke some controversy. Firstly, it should not only be confined to the employees but applied also to the employers.
 Members of the political directorate - appointed/selected/elected should also be subjected to polygraph testing. Secondly, there is the issue surrounding the reliability of the equipment being utilized. There is a real risk of serious and irreparable damage to individuals who have been inaccurately evaluated.

We put forward one easy (some would say cynical) test. Use the entire Cabinet as the test standard for reliability. If the results come up less than 100% pass rate, then the equipment is deemed to be faulty and should be banned from use in Jamaica.

We fully recognize that there may be some considerable difficulty in sourcing such equipment. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The MPP COE is supposed to unearth the truth. Being sworn with bible in hand is of no guarantee here on earth of the truth being spoken. The battery of attorneys at the COE is more than an indication that "the truth" needs legal protection (lest it be incidentally revealed with embarrassing consequences).

Save time and money: subject witnesses to polygraph testing (who lie?). Then again the Commissioners themselves would also have to be subjected to polygraph testing (who nah lie?).

Read more...

Pointed Questions

Gleaner contributor Gordon Robinson, Attorney-at-Law in a column of August 29, 2010 purporting to outline the sequence of events in the Dudus Extradition affair, made some interesting inferences and asked a number of pointed questions.

Given the details of the statement filed by the former Senator Ronald Robinson to the COE, the following becomes extremely pertinent.

November 20, 2009: MPP has a second meeting with Bisa Williams, a US State Department director. On that same day, according to the May 11 statement of the prime minister:

"Dr Ronald Robinson, minister of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and (JLP) deputy general secretary, ... was invited by Mr Brady to attend a meeting at the State Department but declined ... . He did attend an informal meeting between Mr Brady and a representative of [MPP] ... to discuss the matters in relation to which the firm had been retained."

The inference from Driva's statement is that Brady was at that State Department meeting. If so, why? In what capacity? Did he obtain national security clearance? On what authority was he inviting Mr Robinson to attend? On what authority did Mr Robinson entertain the invitation so much so that, although he declined, he attended what could only have been a subsequent debriefing meeting with MPP and Brady? ......................

If these were innocent meetings, why has Robinson resigned? Why was MPP secretly briefing the GOJ's junior foreign affairs minister after the fact if MPP thought all along that it represented GOJ? Why was Robinson wary of being seen with Brady/MPP at the State Department meeting? Two plus two always equals four.

This happened in November 2009. Why was nothing done to reprimand Robinson until the matter became public? The foreign affairs minister has admitted that Robinson was not, at the time, on any sort of leave known to Government service. He was officially on duty as junior foreign affairs minister. But for the evidence of the cautious wording of the October 1 letter, it's easy to understand how MPP themselves might have been deceived into believing that they were working for GOJ. How many more public officials willingly participated in this JLP plot, sanctioned by the JLP Leader, to deceive the US government (and maybe MPP) that it was engaged in government-to-government talks?

One is left to wonder about the silence hitherto concerning the Vale Royal meetings held between the Prime Minister, Harold Brady and Ronald Robinson. According to Robinson, the first one involved the Prime Minister giving instructions to both Brady and himself and specifically about the briefing of the MPP lawyers of Jamaica's position. On the return of Brady and Robinson, the PM was briefed was briefed as to the outcome of his sanctioned mission.

The unavoidable question:

Why then and there did the Prime Minister not issue instructions to terminate the involvement of MPP?

The answer:

To do so would have obviated the need to have briefed them in the first place.

That presence statement is vital, to wit:
“The HPM,” said Robinson, using the acronym for the title Honourable Prime Minister, “instructed me to go to Washington to meet with the principals of MPP to brief them. My presence would also give some credence and strength to Mr Brady’s involvement.”[emphasis added].

Read more...

Fire Dem!

The MPP  Commission of Enquiry a flop! Nutten nah gwaan!

PM Bruce Golding for whatever reasons ( pressure from business sector, need to rehabilitate political credibility, to prove that he was always speaking the truth)) established the Emile George QC chaired Commission.

Chief Servant Golding attempted to lead by example by filing his statement early in the day and indicated (through his counsel) that he stands ready to give evidence at the convenience of the Commission. Sadly none of his Cabinet colleagues chose to follow the Leader's example,  The most egregious example is that of Dorothy Lightbourne who is:

• A senior Attorney of many years standing
• A learned Queens Counsel (QC)
• The Minister of Justice
• The Attorney General (The Legal Advisor to the Cabinet)
• Leader of Government Business in the Senate
• A key operative in the extradition process

This illustrious lady failed to comply with the COE stipulated deadlines for filing statements - both the original and extensions.  The excuse given is that one of the two attorneys representing her. Is it that she had no confidence (pun intended) in the other or was she incapable of crafting her own statement?

Somehow one could have gained the impression that writing the truth would have been easy - certainly within the competence of the Legal Advisor of the Cabinet.

But Lightbourne is not alone.  Where are the statements of the other members of the Cabinet inextricably involved in this matter, such as Minister of National Security, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Information & Special Projects?

We suggest to the Chief Servant that he should no longer tolerate such slackness.  If the statements are not filed by the next Cabinet meeting they should not be required to attend any more meetings of the Cabinet. 

Fire dem!!

He who decided to lead by example must ensure that he is being followed. Do something Leader!

Read more...

Why Ronald Robinson Resigned

  "........in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Dr Robinson admitted that his contact with Manatt "could have been inappropriate".

"For that I accept responsibility and should not have met with them, and for that I apologise. Note, however, that my only contact with the firm was twice between November 19 and 20, which was a full month or so after the website postings," Dr Robinson said.

He was in April this year identified as the Government official who met with officials of Manatt, the firm that was reportedly engaged by the Jamaican Government to lobby the United States to drop its extradition request for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to face drug- and gun-running charges there.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Ronald-Robinson-resigns-as-senator-junior-minister_7634446#ixzz1CBnPUcRz

The public anxiously awaits the statement to be filed with the Commission of Enquiry. Meanwhile, his attorney has taken advantage of maximum media coverage. The attorney has informed that Robinson is a phone call away in the USA.

Update - The Sunday Observer has reported details of the filed statement by Ronald Robinson.

“The HPM,” said Robinson, using the acronym for the title Honourable Prime Minister, “instructed me to go to Washington to meet with the principals of MPP to brief them. My presence would also give some credence and strength to Mr Brady’s involvement.”

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/New-twist-to-Manatt-saga---Former-junior-minister-says-PM-sent-him-to-meet-with-law-firm-#ixzz1CXeRNu51

Read more...

PNP Probing Questions

The Dudus Enquiry may find the answers to the following questions extremely interesting. 


1. On what basis did the Solicitor General believe it was appropriate for private foreign citizens, in the persons of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, to attend a meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the Government of the United States involving highly sensitive and confidential issues?
Especially when, according to the Prime Minister, they were not engaged by the Government of Jamaica.
Would this not constitute an ethical breach?

2. Was the ambassador of Jamaica to the United States in Washington present at any of the meetings held between the Solicitor General and the US government authorities at which private foreign citizens from Manatt, Phelps and Phillips were also present?

3. Was the Jamaican ambassador to the US in Washington aware that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips were stating that they represent the Government of Jamaica and did he report this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or any one else in the Government of Jamaica?

4. Did representatives of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips meet with officials of the Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General? If so, with whom, when and where?

5. What steps has the Government of Jamaica taken to clear the record with the US Justice Department to indicate that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips is not a representative of the Government of Jamaica?

6. Who paid the US$49,892.62 that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips reports to have paid for services rendered?
Was it the Government of Jamaica?
Was it Mr Brady?
Was it Mr Brady on behalf of his client?
If so, who is his client?

7. Did Mr Brady have any discussions with any officials of the Cabinet and Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General prior to signing the contract with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips?

8. Was the Solicitor General on a frolic of his own when he invited Manatt, Phelps and Phillips to attend the meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the US Government?

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

Read more...

Monday's Molotov

In our post Leys Lullaby, we had questioned the role of Solicitor General Douglas Leys.

After initially refusing the gratuitous offer made by the representative of MPP to attend the scheduled meeting of US State Department and Justice Department officials with GOJ officials, he was subsequently convinced to allow the representative to accompany the Jamaican delegation. We had wondered who or what convinced the SG to change his mind. After all has admitted on radio to include Jamaican attorney Harold Brady would have been improper.

Our information from a most reliable source is that the SG was in constant telephonic contact with government officials in Jamaica. On the first day of what has been dubbed the "Dudus Enquiry" we have been provided with the answer.

Coye testified that in December 2009, she went to the residence of Jamaican ambassador to Washington, Anthony Johnson, and that attorney Harold Brady was present together with an attorney from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. She said that she later learned that the attorney was named Kevin Di Gregory.

She said that Deputy Solicitor General Lackston Robinson had told her that the lawyer would be a part of the Jamaican delegation to meet with US State Department and Justice Department officials, which included her, himself and Solicitor General Douglas Leys.

Coye further testified that Robinson told her Leys had included the Manatt lawyer in the delegation because he understood US law and understood the thinking of the Justice Department, being a former employee there.

The ambassador said she objected because there was no approval from Foreign Minister Ken Baugh or Dorothy Lightbourne, justice minister and attorney general. However, she said that when she confronted Leys, he told her that Lightbourne had given permission to expand the delegation.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Manatt-was-working-for-gov-t-on-Dudus---testimony#ixzz1BK1RaVB9

 This raises a number of questions:

• Was the Solicitor General speaking the truth, when he said on radio that the gratuitous offer was extended merely hours before the scheduled meeting?
• Was the Attorney General speaking the truth when she said that the first time she heard of the firm MPP was when the matter was raised in parliament?
• Did the Solicitor General seek and obtain the authority of the Attorney General Lightbourne before he accepted the gratuitous offer?
• What consideration was given to the objections by the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the initial reservations of the Solicitor General?
• Did the Attorney General inform the Prime Minister of the inclusion of MPP along with the GOJ delegation?
• Were the Attorney General and the Prime Minister briefed as to the outcome of the meetings with the US govt. officials and the GOJ delegation which included the representative from MPP?
• Was there a post meeting conference at the law offices of MPP?
• If yes, what role did the MPP representative play in those post meeting discussions?

Read more...