EDITORIAL - Accountability and the DPP

The trend, globally, is for citizens to demand greater public accountability from their political representatives and officials who operate on their behalf.

Jamaica is no exception, on the unassailable assumption that transparency is a powerful incentive for public officials to enhance the quality of service and governance they provide to the citizenry.

It is in this context that we note the current dispute between the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Ms Paula Llewellyn, and Parliament's Internal and External Affairs Committee over the DPP's refusal to appear before the committee to answer any questions about the functioning of her office.

Ms Llewellyn's decision, supported in an opinion by the attorney general, Mr Ransford Braham, was grounded in the position that appearing before the committee would breach her privilege, set out in Section 94 (5) of the Constitution, that in exercising her powers regarding criminal proceedings, she operates "to the exclusion of any person or authority".

Apparently of greatest concern to Ms Llewellyn was the wish by the committee to delve into matters such as the notable prosecutions by her office over the past four years, as well as human-resource development matters, such as staffing levels, training and recruitment.

It is not clear whether these matters are covered in the document, but Ms Llewellyn has said that her office, despite having no obligation to do so, does prepare annual reports for the justice ministry, to which it is administratively related. These reports are apparently intended for laying in Parliament, but no one recalls one being laid in recent years. That is important.

First, however, this newspaper supports the letter and spirit of the Constitution that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be independent in its powers to determine what criminal prosecutions to undertake and how it proceeds with and/or discontinues cases. It is an insulation against political interference.

Previous accountability

At the same time, concepts of governance and public accountability continue to evolve with a clear bias towards greater openness. Indeed, it was, in part, in response to the tensions between the growing imperative for transparency and the independence of the DPP that Ms Llewellyn's predecessor, Mr Kent Pantry, was, early in the decade, asked to prepare reports for Parliament. He was not invited to appear before a committee. Such reports, however, are a means towards, but are not, in themselves, accountability.

It is also to be recalled that during Mr Pantry's tenure, an independent review of staff relations was conducted at the Office of the DPP.

None of these, in our view, impacted on the independence of the DPP. The constitutional framework notwithstanding, a DPP seized of the issues of accountability could well appear before a parliamentary committee as a matter of courtesy - rather than as an obligation - to expand on facts outlined in the report without any compromise to the office. Appropriate ground rules can be established for such encounters.

We, however, agree that appearing before a parliamentary committee is not the only way to ensure public accountability. We, therefore, look forward to Ms Llewellyn indicating how she intends to achieve this, taking into account the increasing criticism about the apparent declining prosecutorial efficiency of her office.