April Fool jokes at Manatt-Dudus enquiry

On April 1, All Fools' Day, Patrick Bailey, attorney-at-law representing Dr Ronald Robinson, a former senator and minister of state, asked Prime Minister Bruce Golding why he did not ask Robinson to reconsider his resignation. Golding responded by claiming that there was a difference between tendering resignation and offering resignation, meaning one leaves room for reconsideration, while the other is final.

However, when a dictionary was checked, there was no difference. Bailey must have known there was no difference but he asked no follow-up question, obviously accepting it as a joke. Commissioner Anthony Irons, an industrial-relations specialist, did not ask for any clarification about the difference, which probably meant he can take a joke.

Golding could not be serious in claiming that Robinson, in offering/tendering his resignation, was being final, and that there was no room for Golding to ask him to reconsider because, according to the prime minister, Robinson resigned as minister of state only and it was he, Golding, who asked him to resign from the Senate as well. So Golding's creation of a new definition and distinction between offering and tendering a resignation was immaterial to Bailey's question.

Additionally, it makes no sense for Robinson to offer/tender resignation to the prime minister for improper contact with Manatt when it was the prime minister who sent him to the meeting. And if Robinson claims that he was sent to Manatt in his capacity as a minister of state and not as deputy general secretary of JLP, why did he resign based on the Westminster principle? Nothing is wrong with a government official meeting with Manatt concerning an extradition matter. And why did the PM accept Robinson's resignation when he was the one who sent Robinson to meet with Manatt?

other scenarios

And the levity continues in the claim that it is all right for the JLP to engage Manatt on behalf of Christopher Coke for US$100,000 per quarter. Is it being claimed that every JLP supporter, in similar circumstances, would be treated the same way as Coke? And what would happen if Coke was a PNP supporter? Would the JLP fund the engagement for a PNP supporter, or would Golding have contacted the PNP to fund the initiative? But suppose Coke was not a supporter of any political party, what would have happened? What transpired gave an unfair advantage to a certain important member of the JLP. A political party initiative should not commingle or coexist with the affairs of the Government when dealing with extradition.

Unfortunately, Jamaicans have not learnt the mistakes of commingling political party affairs with government matters.How else do we explain that the lawyers' fees for the prime minister are not being paid by taxpayers? Whether we approve of Golding's actions, the office of prime minister should be respected and he gathered information in his capacity of PM, and his legal fees should, therefore, be paid from the government coffers and not by the JLP or unnamed persons. This action continues the mistake of commingling government affairs with the JLP.

When Prime Minister Bruce Golding sues the American news agency, for a serious allegation against him, do we expect the JLP or unnamed persons to pay for those legal fees? I say no! It should be the taxpayers.

Finally, Dr Ken Baugh, deputy PM, in the presence of the PM in the Parliament, asserted that Robinson, in his trip to meet Manatt officials, paid his airfare out of his pocket. This was inaccurate, as the JLP paid his airfare. The record of the Parliament needs to reflect the true situation, otherwise people will believe that the Hansard record is a joke!

The Rev Devon Dick is an author and pastor of Boulevard Baptist Church. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.