Lightbourne in the light

Robert Buddan, Gleaner Writer

When Dorothy Lightbourne declared that she heard about Manatt, Phelps & Phillips' involvement with the Government of Jamaica only when Peter Phillips made the revelation in Parliament, many were willing to believe her, even though her ignorance had a ring of incredulity to it. There was sympathy for Lightbourne over what was thought to have been a secret corps within the government that had frozen her out. Mrs Lightbourne implied that she had been left in the dark. Speculation went that this secret corps might have felt that Lightbourne could not be trusted to play along or that because she was female, this had somehow caused her to be dissed by the men at the core of this cowboy government.

There was sympathy, especially against the background that Bruce Golding had gone to Parliament and declared that should Mrs Lightbourne sign an order to proceed with Christopher Coke's extradition, she should also sign her resignation letter. It sounded like bullying. Mrs Lightbourne's boss had threatened to fire her if she did not play by his rules. She seemed an innocent instrument of this cowboy posse at which Golding was lead rider. Mind you, she could have resigned, and not all were convinced that she knew or could do nothing.

Eventually, too many questions were being asked about what she, as minister of justice and attorney general, and what Douglas Leys, as solicitor general, really knew; and, besides, it was felt that they and Golding should take responsibility for the political cost to the nation for the 'Dudus' embarrassment and for what Leys now confesses to being a "web of deception" surrounding the whole extradition matter. There were rounds of calls for Golding's resignation and the parliamentary Opposition introduced a motion of censure against him in the House. It subsequently introduced a motion of censure against Lightbourne in the Senate as well.

Shedding Light

In her response, Mrs Lightbourne came out fighting. In effect, she declared that she was in full agreement with the Government and was a part of that Government, secret or open, that had decided, on all the major points on which it based its position, that it could not honour the Coke extradition request. She declared that the decision not to extradite was based on her executive discretion. Not only did she, as the executive, trump the judiciary, making separation of powers inapplicable, but she took charge of the decision first not to extradite and then later to extradite.

In her defence in the Senate, Mrs Lightbourne explained how the decision to extradite came about. She declared: "I advised the Cabinet that, in the circumstances, I would be signing the authority to proceed and did so on May 18, 2010. I state, for the record, that at no time did the prime minister give me any directions as to how my discretion should be exercised." This latter sentence sounded incredible then and sounds more incredible now from what we are hearing coming out of the Manatt enquiry.

Untruthfulness in Government

Jeremy Taylor, deputy director of public prosecutions in charge of the extradition unit, testified at the enquiry that he had told Lightbourne from day one that her concerns and objections over the extradition had no merit. Then, after Leys' testimony on February 8, the PNPYO, the youth arm of the Opposition People's National Party, interpreted him as saying that Mrs Lightbourne had lied to the Senate last year when she denied knowledge of the involvement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Lightbourne in the light in the Coke affair. Leys told the enquiry that Mrs Lightbourne's version of events disclosed to the Senate contradicted his recollection.

The YO's press release said, "The solicitor general has confirmed publicly what many persons have believed for a long time, that the justice minister lied to the country, misled Parliament and brought the Office of the Attorney General, the Senate of the country and the entire institution of Government into disrepute with a dishonourable and despicable display of dishonesty. If the attorney general continues to refuse to do the honourable thing by resigning, we are calling on the prime minister to dismiss her."

Mr Leys told the enquiry that Mrs Lightbourne knew from December 2009 that Manatt's lawyers would attend a meeting between a Jamaican delegation and US State Department officials. He knew this because he had phoned her to ask her permission for them to attend. The fact that one attended must mean that she had approved.

Mrs Lightbourne had also dismissed the motion of censure in the Senate which accused her of delay and dithering, saying there had been a "dispute" between two sovereign nations. Bruce Golding had also told the nation on May 17, 2010 that there was a stalemate between the two countries. But Leys told the enquiry that, at least between August and September, 2010, there was no stalemate. He dismissed the Government's claims that Manatt had been employed by the JLP, as Golding insists. Extradition, he correctly said, was a government-to-government matter.

Westminster in Decay

Leys said he realises now that a "web of deception" was being spun. International lawyer, Professor David Rowe, who is close to the Coke case and the Manatt enquiry, points to the larger issue. Our democracy is decaying rapidly. Mrs Lightbourne is not just a member of the executive but a member of the legislature. In fact, she is the leader of government business in the Senate. Professor Rowe finds that what the solicitor general (SG) said at the enquiry contradicts what the AG said in the Senate. Like the PNPYO, Rowe says one of the two cannot be telling the truth. The SG said the AG knew about the Manatt engagement before she said she did.

Professor Rowe points out that a Westminster constitutional convention exists in Queen v Profumo. The convention is that a parliamentarian who lies in Parliament is guilty of contempt of Parliament and ought to resign as a result of that lie. It is a constitutional convention, an unwritten constitutional rule that is part of the constitutional heritage of the Commonwealth Caribbean. In the case of a Cabinet minister, as Lightbourne is, the member should resign before being fired, and even before a scandal or an outcry begins. It is part of the rule of law, even if it is unwritten. The prime minister might also be guilty of this contempt of Parliament.

What can we, as a people, do to save our decaying democracy? Professor Rowe, speaking of the legal tradition, said any member of Parliament can bring a censure motion against the offenders. Society can protest and is justified to undertake acts of civil disobedience to show displeasure at the abandonment of the constitutional convention and the Westminster form of government. Though this model is often criticised for giving too much power to the prime minister, this convention seeks to protect the system from executive abuse. So, let us hear Mrs Lightbourne and Mr Golding at the enquiry soon. Let natural justice prevail. Then we will know what to do.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm.