Making mountains of molehills

Ken Jones, Contributor

Arguments concerning the recently announced commission of enquiry include a protest that the prime minister failed to consult with certain others before the appointment of commissioners. This looks like a molehill made into a mountain because of an unusual promise that should not have been made in the first place.

According to our Constitution, the responsibility for naming members of a commission of enquiry rests entirely with the governing party; and for this I have the word of no less an authority than the Hon David H. Coore OJ, QC, who happens to be one of the signatories of our Constitution.

In 2001, when a similar question was raised by the then Opposition, Mr Coore appropriately cited a relevant 1995 case settled by the Privy Council following an appeal in The Bahamas, which country has a Constitution worded like ours.

Always abide by the Constitution

In Mr Coore's learned view: "The effect of this decision which upheld the decision of the chief justice of The Bahamas and The Bahamas Court of Appeal is that the selection of the members of a commission of enquiry under the act and the settlement of the terms of reference is the exclusive prerogative of the Cabinet. The governor general has no power to question, alter or delay the implementation of the Cabinet's decision even although it is conveyed to him by way of an 'advice'. This decision would, undoubtedly, be regarded as binding by a Jamaican Court."

To my mind, this opinion, which was not challenged by the then government, remains valid today and should be observed by all who demand that we should always abide by the Constitution, whether or not we agree with some of its clauses. The statement, "The governor general has no power to question, alter or delay the implementation of the Cabinet's decision" should be noted particularly by 'Her Majesty's loyal Opposition'.

Bowing to pressure?

The present leader of the opposition is quoted as saying: "It was in November of 2004 that then prime minister and the then leader of the opposition, the Most Honourable P.J. Patterson, and the Most Honourable Edward Seaga, at the Vale Royal talks, agreed that in matters of this nature, it would be best that the route of genuine consultation and consensus seeking be followed. The prime minister was made aware of that agreement in the House of Representatives on Tuesday of last week immediately after he had announced that a commission would be established, and he gave every indication that there would be consultation."

This makes it appear that Mr Golding bowed to pressure and made a promise based on some understanding arrived at outside of Parliament and contrary to constitutional requirements. I make this point to underline my own long-standing opposition to private bipartisan deal-making at Vale Royal instead of open discussion and debate in Gordon House.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist who may be reached kensjones2002@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.