Driva at the wheel?

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

The March Hare is once again on a frolic in Wonderland. On Tuesday, September 14, he achieved the seeming impossible by squeezing a third foot into an already full mouth. And, although, true to form, it has been missed by the entire media fraternity, he inadvertently made some very damaging admissions.

And, not for the first time, Driva and Karl Samuda just can't get their stories straight. A desperate Driva, quizzed as to what discipline had been applied to Harold Brady (nominated, together with Ronald Robinson, by Driva as a scapegoat for Manatt, Phelps & Phillips' actions of which Driva claims ignorance), asserted that Brady had been asked to resign from all government boards and was no longer a party member.

As it turns out, the fact is no disciplinary proceeding had been taken against Brady some six months after Peter Phillips' parliamentary revelations. As it turns out, Brady is still a party member - as confirmed by Karl Samuda - and Driva now wants us to believe that a prime minister of Jamaica, himself a former Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) chairman (1984-1995 and 2003-2005) and general secretary (1974-1984), thought that non-payment of dues rendered membership in an association void. Even were that so, that wouldn't be disciplinary action but mere serendipity.

What did Brady do wrong? According to Driva, Brady, on behalf of the JLP, disobeyed specific instructions not to get the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) involved in what was otherwise an admitted interference with and attempt to influence to the effective benefit of an accused drug kingpin, sensitive government-to-government negotiations. It is not that Brady was on a frolic of his own. It is that he allowed the GOJ to be involved.

How this could be accomplished by a private lawyer is still unclear, but it appears that had this "initiative" been limited to a JLP activity, Driva would have been happy.

Opening of discussions

Remember, in late April, Karl Samuda, after being asked to investigate the matter, (apparently nobody knew what was going on), issued a carefully considered statement asserting in part:

"In September of last year, persons within the JLP approached Mr Brady to see whether, through his wide network of international contacts, he could assist in facilitating the opening of discussions between the United States (US) authorities and the Government of Jamaica, and thereby, seek to resolve what had become a treaty dispute between the US and Jamaica."

It has already been pointed out that GOJ-US government (USG) dialogue hadn't even started when Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) was retained, so let's not go there again. However, please note Karl Samuda's "findings" that "persons within the JLP" approached Brady. How many persons? Who were they?

On May 11, Driva followed this with an equally carefully crafted statement to Parliament to explain why he had permitted these "persons" to proceed with their "initiative". He solemnly said to our nation's highest forum:

"The initiative which led to the engagement (of MPP) by Mr Brady started within the Jamaica Labour Party in September when he was approached to see whether, through his contacts with persons in the American political system, assistance could be obtained in finding a way to resolve what was seen as a treaty dispute between Jamaica and the US ... ."

The initiative started "within the JLP", and Driva was fully aware that the plan was to have "the American political system" try to resolve what both he and Samuda called "a treaty dispute". Oozing charm from every pore, he continued to oil his way around the issue:

"I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the governments of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party, not by or on behalf of the Government."

So, these "persons" asked for the leader's permission to carry out their "initiative" and he gave them the OK. Right?

But, in acquiring multiple-foot-in-mouth disease on Tuesday, Driva admits that MPP's insistence on being put on a professional retainer "was reported TO ME by Brady ... ." Why was that report being made directly by Brady to Driva? What about Brady's "clients" - those shadowy "persons within the JLP"? Where were they?

His May 11 statement went on:

"Mr Brady's contacts referred him to the firm (of MPP), a highly reputable US law firm, which offered to assist on a professional retainer basis. Mr Brady's firm retained (MPP) in October of last year to pursue discussions with relevant officials of the US government."

Did Driva not know that if "discussions with relevant officials of the US government" were to take place on treaty issues, they could not be lawfully undertaken on behalf of a political party? How did he expect that the GOJ could be left out? Or did he?

He has now admitted that MPP's insistence on a "professional, retainer" was reported directly to him by Brady. Did the firm of MPP not also advise that they could only approach the USG on this topic if they could convince the USG that they were representing the GOJ? Did Brady leave this out in his report? Why?

Services retained

Driva has now admitted that the instruction to proceed on MPP's terms was given specifically by him. Surely, he knew what that had to entail?

Karl Samuda's earlier "findings" were said to have disclosed the following:

"Mr. Brady's firm retained the services (of MPP) on or about October 2009 to pursue discussions with relevant officials of the government."

Apparently, despite the fact that the retainer payment was published on the Department of Justice's website for all to see, Samuda's investigations had not revealed that MPP had been retained on September 18, 2009, and not "on or about October 2009" as he so obfuscatorily put it. Could this have something to do with the fact that the first official government-to-government letter exhibited by the attorney general in her affidavit filed in the Supreme Court was dated October 30, 2009?

MPP was retained on September 18 and the solicitor general sent instructions to that firm the very next day!

Driva is stoic on the point that those instructions were meant for Harold Brady. OK, then, why was the solicitor general sending instructions to the JLP's lawyers?

Clearly, Driva sees nothing wrong with that. He needs to explain why the JLP felt it could interpose itself into an extradition matter governed by a treaty between two sovereign states. What interest could the JLP have in the extradition or otherwise of Christopher Coke? Why did Driva sanction this gross interference with the nation's official business? How did "persons within the JLP" come to know of this extradition request so early in the game? Were they "tipped off"? Why? Do we need to launch an Officials Secrets Act investigation?

His cute anecdote about his chat with Al Sharpton would have been enchanting had it not been so sickening. Come on, Driva! Are you suggesting that talking to Rev Al (Sharpton that is) is the same as instructing, working with, and inviting to GOJ-USG negotiations a lobbying firm that had been paid US$50,000 to influence the process? How much was Rev Al paid?

Anyway, Samuda's findings were as follows:

"I am advised that all payment arrangements (to MPP) were transacted between the two firms. The Government of Jamaica had nothing to do with any aspect of these arrangements."

Really, Mr Samuda? Who told you that?

On May 11, Driva had this to say on the same issue: "A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18, 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the party."

On Tuesday, Driva said: "When (MPP's terms) was reported to me by Brady, that is when I should have said 'Absolutely not'." This means that it was his decision that prompted the resort to a single JLP donor of long standing who was asked to fork out approximately US$50,000, in addition to his usual quarterly contributions, because, as Driva so eloquently put it, the party was in a problem. OMG! Was Driva in charge all along? Where now are these phantom "persons within the JLP"? Where are these "financial contributors"? It was one donor, known to Driva personally for 40 years, who was asked to pay!!

Now he wants to protect the donor from the "smouldering cauldron". Why? Is it the donor he is protecting? He hasn't protected Brady, nor has he embraced Ronald Robinson. Why this sudden concern for a donor who, according to Driva, coughed up US$50,000 without asking a single question regarding the use to which the funds would be put?

Cauldronic treatment

Frankly, that sort of reckless abandon itself is deserving of cauldronic treatment. As it turns out, these funds were used to attempt to influence the course of justice. Jamaica wants to know who was involved. Were these funds really belonging to this so-called "donor", or was he fronting for someone else? If it turns out that this "donor" wasn't quite as careless with his own money as Driva would want us to believe, but was simply shop-fronting for someone else, we want to know who that was. Can we see a copy of the cheque to MPP? What has Driva to hide? What has this donor, if he is as innocent as the driven snow, to hide?

And make no mistake about it, this entire MPP episode has turned out to be an attempt to influence the course of justice on behalf of 'Dudus'. There is simply no other possible reason to employ these drastic tactics so early in the game. This Government has admitted, by signing the "authority to proceed", that the correct course of justice was to do so. The only alternative is for them to admit knowingly signing an illegal document simply due to public pressure and for no other reason. Surely that is a non-starter?

If this Government knowingly signed an illegal document, then it has, by signing that document, perverted the course of justice. If it was right to sign, then the MPP initiative was an attempted perversion of the course of justice. Driva must pick his poison, and know that the consequences of this disgraceful episode, in which he was obviously involved up to his neck, has set back this country disastrously.

So, while the JLP is conducting this looking-glass investigation of Brady, can it please also investigate the March Hare and the Mad Hatter? We the people will not rest until we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.