Orville Taylor | Law and politics

Law, while it might be an ass, according to Lord Denning, we can kiss our teeth but must ride or be dragged forward by it. Moreover, it can only do what it was designed to do. According to the Jamaican adage about this quadruped with an uneven number of legs, the world is not level.

Many statutes are downright stupid and, of course, reflect the states of mind of the persons who enact them. Still, they are binding on all residents of this little island and must be obeyed, especially by the most powerful.

A distinction must be made between what is‘right’ or ‘fair’ and what is ‘legal’ or ‘good law’. Legality does not have any bearing on whether or not it is good for anyone except those who may have passed the legislation. For example, English law allowed multiple atrocities against British workers between 1750 and 1840. It was also perfectly legal for Europeans, and believe it or not, some Africans, to possess other human beings as if they were cattle.

In the past weeks, what looks like an impasse arose between the Integrity Commission (IC) and the Government/Prime Minister Andrew Holness over questions regarding his submissions to it.

Lawyered up, Holness has used the means available to anyone, who has any problem with any adverse decision against him, and sought judicial review. Whatever the optics, he is a citizen of this country and has an inalienable right to exhaust all levels of the judicial system to protect his reputation.

In the wake of developments surrounding the IC report, the parliamentary Opposition attempted, last week, to initiate a ‘no confidence’ motion in the House of Representatives. That there may be waning confidence in the prime minister is not in question because the Don Anderson and other polls have clearly demonstrated that there is grease on the popularity slopes.

Nevertheless, within the Houses of Parliament, there are rules and laws, which are as binding as cyanoacrylate. Therefore, such a motion must be done properly.

Never mind that Speaker of the House, Juliet Holness, his spouse, after recusing herself, indicated, post facto, that she would have allowed the motion attempted by Leader of Opposition Mark Golding to be tabled not debated. ‘There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lips’ and saying that she would have, doesn’t mean that she could have. After all, there were a number of militating variables, not least of all. strong and clear objections from Member for Clarendon Southeastern Pearnel Charles Jr, a learned attorney. As bright and knowledgeable as she is, Holness is not lawyer.

Neither am I. Thus, having consulted with my friends from the Bar, it is easy to accept that the sub judice rule prevented the tabling of the motion. For the uninitiated, the rule, basically, says that as long as a matter is before the courts, it simply cannot be discussed.

Given the stakes, whatever the political fallout, only a hypocrite would blame the prime minister for pulling out all the stops in covering himself with latex.

Following the ass, the IC commissioners, when appearing before Parliament as summoned, should use the same sub judice glue on their lips.

Yet, politicians do politics, don’t they?

Not surprisingly, the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has taken issue with the candidacy of Isat Buchanan, the attorney credited with freeing Vybz Kartel, for East Portland. A party whose own Neville Cleve Lewis was a convict thrice elected as member of Parliament is balking at the dread, who stubbed his toe twice, and against all odds, is now an officer of the courts.

True, it is a paradox that the convict is the attorney and the client has a clean record. However, whatever legal loophole he saw in becoming a lawyer, the laws of this country have spoken, and until they change, no dog barks. Puss and dog have different luck in the law market.

Whatever may be the illogic, Parliament decided that it must keep privileges for itself that other government workers do not have. Young and healthy public officers have to pack their bags a little after passing 60 while parliamentarians who witnessed Eve eating the fruit can serve. Similarly, a convicted person cannot even be a janitor much less a government lawyer or police officer.

Yet inasmuch as politicians make laws, they first have to get or remain elected. Right now, given the pencil-thin margin between the two main parties and a still large belly of unimpressed voters, they must step wisely.

Much disquiet surrounds Holness’ perceived battle with the IC. Inasmuch as he is entitled to do as he is doing, the expressed desire by him and Security Minister Horace Chang to change the statutes regarding ‘unexplained wealth’ in the middle of an investigation and court case is a very unwise one 11 months before a general election is due. Given the improbability of this statutory change making it through the Senate by then, the only likely impact is loss of votes from the uncommitted middle.

As for the PNP’s choosing young ‘Big Youth’, whose father’s first name is, prophetically, Manley, it may not be as unwise a move as some think.

Although a big assumption, the party clearly believes that he will ride a wave of popularity among voters, which Kartel would have activated. Moreover, he may represent to young people who have erred that there is hope and rehabilitation. But that is a risk. There are some voters who prefer a representative who simply never did than one who did it twice and then stopped doing it.

East Portland is orange country nevertheless. Up to the victory by Ann Marie Vaz in April 2019, the PNP had a 30-year lien on the seat. Even so, she beat Damion Crawford by only 306 votes: 9,716 to 9,611. Were it held in ‘May’, the goat advocate might have had a different outcome.

By the way, politicians, separate narratives from legal facts. Please!

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.