Editorial | Mayor Vernon erred

This newspaper is surprised that Richard Vernon, the chairman of the St James Municipal Corporation (SJMC), is engaging in a legal quibble with the political ombudsman over the ombudsman’s right to question his authority to order the removal of political advertising in the municipality.

The spirit of the law, the interests of democracy and good relations between the main parties during an election suggest that Mr Vernon should have had no problem in complying with the request.

But this dispute highlights, as critics warned, the absurdity of subsuming the stand-alone, independent political ombudsman into the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), which acts “indivisibly” as the ombudsman.

In that regard, the political ombudsman who requested the explanation from Mr Vernon includes, in its make-up, two officials from Mr Vernon’s Jamaica Labour Party, who represent the party on the ECJ. Either they were out-voted in the ECJ on the decision to ask Mr Vernon for the explanation, or, seemingly, are at odds with Mr Vernon with respect to their powers when acting as the political ombudsman, or the limits of his authority to act in the specific circumstances.

This is an unwise political burden to have been imposed on the ECJ, which should be corrected forthwith.

The emerging legal quarrel between the political ombudsman/ECJ and Mr Vernon is over a claim by the People’s National Party (PNP), which became public in March, that Mr Vernon improperly removed the party’s political advertising from public spaces in the parish of St James.

DELIBERATELY MALICIOUS

The action, the PNP suggested, was deliberately malicious and was in breach of the political code of conduct, aimed at removing tensions between political parties and their supporters.

Mr Vernon, who also has the title of mayor of Montego Bay, insisted that he operated within the control of advertising regulations of the Town and Country Planning Act.

Indeed, Mr Vernon’s lawyers have strongly implied to the ombudsman/ECJ that there was no basis in law for their client to provide an explanation for his actions, “especially in the context of the municipality performance of its statutory obligations under the Town And Country Planning (Control of Advertising Regulations) Act, 1978”.

From a legal standpoint, there will likely be much debate over the seeming exception from the need for “express consent” to put up in public spaces “any advertising specifically related to a pending parliamentary or local government election”.

Indeed, the PNP has argued that it had this right, given that since March 7, Jamaica – under the 2016 amendment to the Representation of the People Act – has been in a “campaign period”, which starts six months before the official five-year term of a government comes to an end.

Whatever the resolution of this point, it would seem to this newspaper that good order and good sense would have impelled Mr Vernon to offer the ombudsman an explanation of the basis of his decision, even if he does so without prejudice and on a voluntary basis.

DANGER

The danger, in the circumstances, is that apparently hardened positions will lead to a tit-for-tat between the supporters.

Making the point that the St James municipal corporation was neither a political party nor person, Mayor Vernon’s lawyers implied, therefore, that it was not subject to the oversight of the political ombudsman. In the performance of his duties as the corporation’s chairman, Mr Vernon would be similarly exempt.

It is the question, as was once posed to former prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, of which skin Mr Vernon occupied, or intended to occupy, when he issued his directive: partisan politician, or above-the-fray chairman of the SJMC?

It can also be expected in the back-and-forth that much will be made of how widely the investigative powers of the political ombudsman should be interpreted.

For instance, section 15(2) of the Act says, “The political ombudsman may adopt whatever procedure he considers appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case and subject to the provisions of this Act, may abstain information from SUCH PERSONS and in such a manner, and make such enquiries as he thinks fit.”

Section 16(3) adds: “For the purpose of this Act, the political ombudsman shall have the same powers as a judge of the Supreme Court in respect of the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents.”

Could Mr Vernon and his corporation be required to give evidence in the context of a broader investigation.