Daniel Thwaites i | Marlene, ah mussi dream yuh deh dream

Marlene Malahoo Forte is not only the chief legal luminary for the Government, but a fashion and style icon in our likkle country. Never forget that back in December 2013, when the cops raided the gully beneath Trafalgar Road in New Kingston to detain some robbers who had been terrorising people, the infamous perpetrators were identified by the following names: ‘Marlene Malaboo-Forte’, ‘Michelle’, ‘Pebbles’, ‘Goodas’, and ‘Bat Man’.

Now in some sort of broken and bizarre way, that’s one helluva compliment to be paid by the underworld, desperately seeking to identify with someone glamorous and valuable by adopting her handle. But for all we know, poor Malaboo Forte could be locked up and detained without charge in one of these multiple ongoing states of emergency. And there is no mercy for Malaboo from Malahoo. Don’t even mention Goodas and Bat Man.

For some reason, the prime minister will not let go of Malahoo. Time and again she keeps landing him in problems, but still … there she is … just waiting to dole out some more bad advice. Has there ever been a more unsuccessful attorney general before the courts?

Maybe it’s something else going on. Although I don’t officially believe in duppy and dem tings, unofficially, I’m careful to not disturb any. Anyhow, after a series of unfortunate events, crystallised in The Gleaner’s story last Sunday, titled ‘Political week from hell’ – Holness admin ‘overwhelmed’ navigating choppy waters as polls loom, I guarantee you that Andrew won’t ever again bother to invoke Michael Manley’s memory except ceremoniously and with due caution. That’s because on top of the righteous dressing-down he’s received for the initial effort, some of it perhaps unwarranted and over-the-top, it seems like Manley’s duppy decided to box-box him up in the meanwhile.

GETTING ACCUSTOMED

Look at it. We were just getting accustomed to Daryl being removed from the environment portfolio, while issues about Wheatley and Reid kept popping up as reports surfaced and investigations ripened.

Then J.C. Hutchinson gets forcibly removed to the low-security farm at OPM, and sadly, the fruit of a useful project, distributing old sugar lands to productive small farmers, will likely rot in the field from drought and inattention. Then Tufton’s signature (and excellent) project, ‘Jamaica Moves’, meant to combat the explosion of non-communicable and lifestyle diseases, may become unpalatable because its preparation was far too hot and sugary.

Can we assume that henceforth, with J.C. gone, the lands will be distributed to the usual suspects? And that Jamaica Moves has had a heart attack?

On top of that, Zahra Burton, who, despite the, ahem, ‘edginess’ of her intervention, deserves the support of all real journalists, ensured that every Jamaican who loves to fass inna people business (call it every Jamaican) would pay attention. It ah ring! Inna mi ears it a ring!: “Were you cheating on your wife…?” Jeeeezas, please to come fi yuh werl.

Anyway, after all that excitement, the PM sued for peace with Michael’s memory, and there was indeed a short lull before beatings began once more. This time, the disturbance came from the Courts of Justice when Justice Bertram Morrison ruled that the ongoing detention of five men, without charge, under the everlasting states of emergency, won’t continue.

The background is that some brilliant young lawyers had sought a writ of habeas corpus (literally ‘produce the body’) to challenge the detentions under SOEs that the Opposition keeps malafoolishly voting to support. Habeas corpus requires that a person under arrest be brought before a judge.

Let me go down a little alleyway for the fun of it. It’s undoubtedly purely coincidental, but Justice Bertram Morrison’s order landed on the very day of the year when, in 1772, the judgment and order of the Chief Justice of England, Lord Mansfield, was handed down in the case of Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499. There, the writ of habeas corpus was deployed by the brilliant advocates for James Somerset, who was being held prisoner on the ship Ann and Mary awaiting deportation to Jamaica to be sold here. Lord Mansfield famously, and very consequentially (because it gave ammunition and energy to abolitionists across the globe), sided with the lawyers who argued that slavery was “odious” and not defensible by “mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural or political”, and therefore not recognised by the common law.

Never mind its basic incoherence, the ruling created quite a racket, as abolitionists took it to mean that nobody could be held enslaved in England. Anyway, the point at hand is that the writ of habeas corpus has quite a history and it wouldn’t be the worst result, to put it mildly, if we were to rediscover the principle that no person ought to be held indefinitely without charge.

In response, our attorney general – Malaboo’s AG! – the nominal head of the Bar and Government’s top lawyer, had this to say:

“There’s just a worrying trend that I see in respect of some rulings coming out of the court where the law should guide the approach to be taken. And, I have seen many cases that have come back to me in the chambers where what the law says is put aside, both procedurally and sometimes substantially, and matters are determined in other ways.”

ATTACK ON JUDICIARY

This is quite straightforwardly an attack on the judiciary. Marlene, ah mussi dream yuh deh dream!

When you say that “what the law says is put aside … and matters are determined in other ways” you are quite clearly stating that some sort of corruption is afoot – in “many cases”. It’s a breathtaking claim from the administration’s apex attorney.

The Bar Association issued a statement noting that the attorney general “can be deemed to be stating the views of the Government of Jamaica when making such statements” which “have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law”.

Note also that the judges aren’t in the habit of coming out in their own support, even if they are on the biting end of a vicious attack. Cast your mind back to their near-rebellion when the PM had sought to give the chief justice a temporary appointment, his tenure being dependent on whether or not the PM was satisfied with him. Yeah, that innovation sank faster than Malahoo’s arguments in the NIDS case.

Is obeah still against the law? Because based on how that went MOCA should probably check under Malahoo’s bed for a well-scarred pincushion doll of the chief justice.

Malahoo has since issued one of the typical non-apologetic apologies where the fault is laid on how people “interpreted” her statements. Marlene, ah mussi dream yuh deh dream! There’s no misinterpretation of such a clear statement, and so what’s needed isn’t an apology for what we malafools “thought” was said, but an apology for what quite plainly was said.

By the way, it turns out that the judge hadn’t even issued the formal decision yet, meaning that the attorney general has spent energy to say something monumentally stupid, malign the Judiciary, undermine confidence in the legal system, and all without even gathering the basic facts before spouting off.

It doesn’t take much for people to get it into their heads that law needn’t be heeded, judges are the enemy, or that we should revert to the natural way of doing things where might makes right. Don’t we have enough of that? Given that we’re trying to have a civilisation here (a serious assumption, I know) and that as far as the administration goes, “ah one general inna de yard”, I feel the PM needs to look at this. Marlene may even need a ‘time out’ to rest and recuperate. Any space left at OPM?

- Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.