Peter Espeut | A supine Jamaican public

“No matter how briefly, and regardless of the circumstances, I should never have participated in any engagement that could indicate a lack of appreciation of the difficult and serious realities that now face the entire country. My actions have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity for the difficult realities that all of us are facing currently. It was wrong. I accept that this was an error in judgement and that it sends the wrong signal, especially in light of the Government’s drive to reduce the spread of COVID-19. For this I am really and truly very sorry.”

So declared Agriculture & Fisheries Minister Floyd Green in his resignation letter released to the press on September 15, 2021. Good for him! He admitted he was wrong to have attended a birthday party in a Kingston hotel on a ‘no-movement day’, and stepped aside from the Cabinet, but not from the Parliament.

He certainly behaved better than British Prime Minister Alexander Boris Johnson, who has admitted that he and his staff flouted UK pandemic regulations they imposed on the country with “bring your own booze” office parties, birthday celebrations, and “wine-time Fridays”. Boris did apologise (“I want to say sorry ... I understand the anger that people feel. We must look at ourselves in the mirror and we must learn”), but has refused to resign.

Boris Johnson’s ‘Partygate’ is not yet over, as the London Metropolitan police are still investigating whether charges will be laid; but the Floyd Green affair seems to have been laid to rest, as Jamaica’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has ruled that “no criminal charges ought to be preferred against Mr Floyd Green” and others who attended the birthday party.

The basis for the DPP’s conclusions is the legal provision that ‘no-movement days’ do not apply to members of parliament and municipal councillors; the politicians who crafted the laws and regulations to manage the pandemic exempted themselves and their fellows from having to obey them.

What is interesting is that the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ at Westminster did not grant any such exemptions to British politicians. What has angered the British public is that while the law required everyone (including public servants and Her Majesty, the Queen) to obey the pandemic regulations, certain politicians put themselves above the law by repeatedly (and frivolously) ignoring them.

DOES NOT SEEM TO MIND

I wonder how the British public would have reacted if their Parliament had exempted their politicians from having to obey the pandemic restrictions? The Jamaican public does not seem to mind.

Initially, when the exemptions were promulgated in Jamaica, public officers were only exempt while engaging in their duties as a holder of these offices; such a requirement seems reasonable. Subsequently, however, this proviso was removed, allowing free movement for public officials while conducting their private business, or no business at all. Unlike their counterparts in Britain, Jamaican politicians can legally attend “bring your own booze” office parties, birthday celebrations, and “wine-time Fridays”.

Why do Jamaican politicians believe that they can use the law which they have the power to enact to elevate themselves above “the difficult and serious realities that now face the entire country”, to quote Floyd Green. This seems to me to be an abuse of power and privilege; but then, the Jamaican public have allowed their politicians to make themselves into a privileged class, with declarations of assets made in secret, and ‘blighs’ galore for corruption.

And so even though Floyd Green admits that what he did was wrong, his colleagues made sure that what he did was not illegal.

According to the DPP’s judgment, there were 19 persons present at the birthday party in the hotel; two were elected politicians; what about the other 17? Were they innocent by association?

BREACH OF PANDEMIC REGULATIONS

The 17 would be in breach of the pandemic regulations if it can be shown that they left their place of abode on a ‘no-movement day’. According to the DPP, “Where such persons are shown to be present at a hotel facility, taken at its highest, demonstrates that they may have been guests at the facility at the material time. It does not assist us in respect of when he/she commenced being guests at the facility or when they left the facility. The provisions which govern the restriction of movement on particular dates could not have prevented persons checking in to a hotel or resort facility prior to the particular date and remaining as guests through to the actual ‘no-movement’ date.”

The simple way of proving this one way or another would be to consult the register of overnight guests at the hotel, but this evidence was not presented. According to the DPP, “As such, it is the considered view that the evidence is insufficient to ground criminal charges for breaching the ‘no-movement’ provisions.”

In other words, the case file is incomplete. How often have we heard that a file submitted to the DPP was determined to be incomplete, and was sent back for further information? And legal means exist to compel the hotel to provide same (e.g. a subpoena duces tecum). If the hotel declined to voluntarily provide the information, why was a subpoena not issued?

Is some negligence involved here? Or is this just another example of political corruption? Or is our legal system simply impotent to prosecute politicians and their associates?

Would I be forgiven if I wondered whether the Crown prosecutors really wanted any convictions in this case?

In the meantime, the British public are calling for the prime minister to resign, and London Metropolitan Police are still investigating.

Here in Jamaica, Floyd Green was reappointed to the Cabinet even before the DPP’s ruling was publicly known.

The supine Jamaican public deserves what it gets.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com