On truth

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

A good domino player must be able to lie convincingly. Often, domino players will put down a number with no backup intending to trick the opposition into believing that's where his strength lies (pun intended). Hopefully, opponents will cut and introduce the number you really want.

Quality dominoes involves bluff and double bluff so, as any fan of Mad Magazine's 'Spy vs Spy' knows, the ability to lie must come with expertise at spotting a good lie. When left-hand opponent innocently pushes a number that you have, don't rush to cut. Ask yourself, is he lying?

It's my belief that the contractor general doesn't excel at dominoes. I'm sure he won't tell a lie but it also appears that he struggles to discern whether lies have been told to him. The Gleaner of September 15 (Christie claims Tufton, Hill committed perjury) reported: "The ... OCG's probe charged that Agriculture Minister Dr Christopher Tufton and ... Permanent Secretary Donovan Stanberry as well as Aubyn Hill contravened the Perjury Act.

'... The OCG ... concluded that Donovan Stanberry, ... Christopher Tufton ... and Aubyn Hill ... provided the OCG with statements that were manifestly and materially false in that they had unequivocally asserted, ... that 'employment contracts' were awarded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) to Mr Aubyn Hill,' Christie declared."

'Employment contracts'

Apparently, the Big Lie was that these were "employment contracts". Most lawyers know that the difference between an employment (service) contract and a contract for services is an issue of law sometimes requiring lengthy argument and a judge's decision. Contracts can't define themselves as 'employment' or 'consultancy' contracts. Important factors to consider include whose facilities/offices are being used?

How much 'control' does the 'employer' have? Laymen like Hill, Tufton and Stanberry can't lie about the legal effect of something they've signed. It's not a fact within their knowledge. An adulterer who says "It wasn't me" lies. A murderer who says "I wasn't there" lies. A layman who says "it's an employment contract" opines.

And liars don't usually present proof of their prevarication to intended victims. Crime is impossible without criminal intent. If these gentlemen intended to lie, why present the OCG with the contracts as proof of their deception? In that event, their real fault is stupidity which, thankfully for many, isn't a crime.

The Perjury Act defines perjury as: "Every person who, being lawfully sworn ... in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true shall be guilty ... of perjury"

Important words are "wilfully" and "knows". To wilfully lie, one must intend to mislead someone. No legal opinion is "false" so nobody "knows" it's false.Nobody guards his professional independence more jealously than this contractor general and rightly so. Similarly, he should respect the constitutional independence of officers like the director of public prosecutions (DPP) and not use public opprobrium as a strategy to have his way with them.

Married to legal conclusions

Matters should be referred to the DPP for her opinion and action, if necessary, but referrals oughtn't to be married to legal conclusions. That would be one example of a chronic male malady - premature adjudication. Contractors general oughtn't to express disappointment with DPPs' decisions via verbal public floggings which could be misconstrued as attempts to usurp her authority. Public critique of public servants like the DPP (and the contractor general) should be the domain of the judiciary, Parliament, civil society or the press which will do so assiduously, often in newspaper columns. A public official should never publicly browbeat another.

Even if the contractor general doesn't play dominoes, surely he played some cricket? If so, he'd know that the best umpires are practically invisible to spectators. Hands up those who remember the names of previous contractors general who quietly exercised the identical temporary authority now clothing Greg Christie. Anybody?

On the other hand, I'll bet Shahine Robinson is an excellent domino player. Despite holding a US alien registration card, certificate of naturalisation, and having sworn allegiance to the USA in 2006, she stoutly defended an election petition that alleged she's a US citizen. Faced with damning new evidence, she downed tools without explaining her earlier assertions. Will Driva's declared standard for James Robertson apply to her? Or will the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) ask Jamaica to reward a possible perjurer with lawmaker status?

Did she lie? Or stretch the truth? The answers may lie (oops) buried in my favourite limerick:

"Some girls ride in an aeroplane.

Some girls ride in a car.

But when they ride straddle

instead of side saddle

that's stretching it a bit too far!"

Peace and love.

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