EDITORIAL - Mr George must redirect his focus

Maybe Mr Emil George has it within him to conjure up one, but this newspaper can discern no useful or credible reason to delay debate on a parliamentary censure motion against the former national security minister, Dr Peter Phillips.

Whatever is said in Gordon House at this stage ought not to have any bearing, impact or influence on the report that has been, or is being prepared by Mr George and his fellow commissioners who enquired into the Jamaican Government's handling of America's request for the extradition of reputed drug kingpin Christopher Coke.

It matters little, too, what position the commissioners arrive at with regard to Dr Phillips - whether he is criticised, or vindicated. For any significant focus on the former minister's signing of secret memoranda with the Americans and the British would mean that the commissioners would have missed the point of their assignment.

In any event, the censure motion by government member, Mr Gregory Mair, was for the same reason Dr Phillips became so central at the enquiry: deflection and point-scoring.

Having made a bad show of managing the enquiry, the credibility of Mr George's stewardship rests on the quality of the report he produces, rather than insertion of himself in the jousting between the gangs of Godon House on their gilded playing field.

Questions awaiting answers

We, therefore, remind Mr George of the questions we previously posed on March 28 that he and his commissioners must answer:

Whether the Government's behaviour in dealing with America's request for Coke's extradition was corrupt;

If Prime Minister Bruce Golding, whether outright or by omission in his various statements, lied to the Jamaican public about what he knew about the Coke extradition matter and when he knew it;

If there was inappropriate commingling between the Government and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in the management of the affair;

Whether it was the Government or the JLP which hired the US firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby the United States on the Coke extradition;

Whether Manatt had good reason to believe it was acting on behalf of the Government of Jamaica;

Whether Mr Harold Brady, Prime Minister Bruce Golding's emissary, misled Manatt on whose authority he (Brady) acted, the Government's or the JLP's;

If the attorney general and justice minister, Dorothy Lightbourne, lied about the timing of her knowledge and/or involvement in the affair;

Whether she corruptly attempted to stall the extradition;

Whether she is competent for either or both positions;

If the solicitor general, Mr Douglas Leys, lied about the timing of his knowledge of the Government's/JLP's engagement of Manatt;

Whether Mr Leys lied to and misinformed Minister Lightbourne of his involvement with Manatt;

Whether Mr Leys, Minister Lightbourne and the deputy solicitor general, Mr Lackston Robinson, contrived legal arguments to prevent the extradition of Coke;

Whether Mr Daryl Vaz, the information minister and then JLP deputy treasurer, lied to the public about his knowledge of or involvement in the Manatt affair;

And if Mr Karl Samuda, the JLP's then general secretary, and the party's leader and prime minister, Mr Golding, were engaged in a charade and a sham when Mr Golding asked Mr Samuda to conduct an investigation into the development of the Manatt affair.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.