EDITORIAL: GG has real power to appoint enquirers

In the face of the intellectual Lilliput that has been passed off as the considered conclusions of serious people who enquired into the Christopher Coke extradition scandal, it is hardly surprising that the cynics are out in force and that there is hot debate over what ought to be the process for appointing commissioners who probe these matters.

We, however, had thought that in this case, such a deep controversy would have been avoided since the commissioners - Mr Emil George, the chairman; Mr Donald Scharschmidt and Mr Anthony Irons - being conscious of the perception among many that they were the hand-picked team of Prime Minister Bruce Golding, would have produced a report so rigorously and robustly argued as to avoid the claim that Mr Golding, effectively, had been judge in his own cause.

Jamaica, nonetheless, may still be able to extract value from the flaccidly effete effort of Mr George and company if we, in fact, fashion a protocol for naming commissions of enquiry in the future. Unfortunately, in our view, the discussion, so far, has focused on the role of the prime minister in establishing enquiries and appointing commissioners.

It has long been the practice in Jamaica, as in other Westminster-style democracies, for the prime minister to determine when there is need for a commission of enquiry into any specific development, identify and even publicly announce the commissioners, and then advise the governor general of his intent. The governor general usually rubber-stamps the prime minister's request.

Controversial issues

After the previous controversial enquiry into the security forces' operation into Tivoli Gardens in 2001 that left more than 20 civilians and a soldier dead, the then prime minister, Mr P.J. Patterson, and the then opposition leader, Mr Edward Seaga, agreed that the naming of commissioners, especially those probing controversial issues, would be done on the basis of consensus between the Government and Opposition.

But then, as is the case now, that position ignores the independence of the governor general - if he chooses to embrace his power - to establish commissions of enquiry and appoint their commissioners.

Indeed, Section 2 of the Commission of Enquiry Act makes it lawful for the governor general, "whenever he shall deem it advisable, to issue a commission, appointing one or more commissioners" to enquire into the conduct or management of any department of the public service or its officers, if such an enquiry, "in the opinion of the governor general, be for the public welfare". Moreover, the structure of such commissions, in terms of its size and chairman, is "in the discretion of the governor general". Reports go to the governor general.

Nowhere in the law does it say the governor general must act on the advice of the prime minister. Nor is any reference at all made to the PM. Of course, it would be expected that the prime minister would suggest to the governor general the need for a commission enquiry and even suggest members.

But even in such cases, the governor general - a strong, activist governor general, seized of his constitutional authority and role as symbol of national unity - must, in the end, act on his own authority, irrespective of whatever advice he may receive. If the governor general takes advice in such a circumstance, it should not only be from political leadership, but civil society too.

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.