EDITORIAL - Mr Samuda's strange notions

You may question the judgement of the reporters who attended that Asafa Powell/Sherone Simpson interview and their acquiescence to Milton Samuda's request that they hand over recordings made at the event.

That, however, does not exculpate Mr Samuda from his strange notion of trust and honour, which he seems to believe is within his remit to impose on journalists.

Nor does it absolve Mr Samuda from what we believe to be entirely inappropriate behaviour, including, perhaps, accusations of tampering with property.

It is important to place Mr Samuda in context. He is a highly respected lawyer and businessman, known for community activism and being outspoken and frank. He was, latterly, the president of the Jamaica Chamber and Commerce whose interests he pursued with energy. Mr Samuda is chairman of Television Jamaica (TVJ) and also sits on the board of its parent company, RJR Group.

He also happens to be, it seems, a lead attorney for Mr Powell and Miss Simpson, two of the Jamaican athletes who recently returned positive drug tests. Both say they did not knowingly take banned substances. Their case is of global importance and, understandably, of great interest to Jamaicans.

Last week, both offered select journalists a briefing, on the basis, according to Mr Samuda, "that the questions in the interview would be restricted".

That the journalists may have accepted that condition is one thing. What happened next was soap opera.

The reporters apparently asked questions other than what Mr Samuda believed to be within the frame of the agreement and answers to which he seemingly preferred not be in the public domain.

clients' right

That he may have objected to such questions is one thing. That his clients may have chosen to answer is their right.

Indeed, Mr Samuda might have suggested that his clients not answer the questions. There is no indication that he suggested they go off the record with their responses. Nor did he, it appears, appeal to the discretion of the journalists to avoid using answers of which there is no evidence that either Mr Powell or Miss Simpson was coerced into answering.

Instead, Mr Samuda requested the journalists' recordings "on the basis of the restoration of trust". In other words, Mr Samuda had no confidence in the reliability of the journalists to act in accordance with any undertaking which, however erroneously, they might have given. His remedy was to confiscate, however mildly that was achieved, their recordings.

That the journalists acquiesced to his request/demand meant, by Mr Samuda's interpretation, that they "acted honourably". Hand over your tapes and erase your pictures, and you have personal integrity, or has shown allegiance to moral principles. So concludes Mr Samuda.

Having detained the recordings, "so as to remove those questions and answers" that did not fit the supposed prearranged frame of the briefing, Mr Samuda effected his desire, or caused so to do.

Said Mr Samuda: "Throughout, I acted as one of the attorneys-at-law for Miss Simpson and Mr Powell. My primary duty was to protect their interest."

In the process, he stepped on the interest of the public - admittedly, with inadequate defence from the journalists involved. Mr Samuda's role as defence lawyer and a custodian of media collided violently in this case.

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.