Who is to blame for shaming Jamaica?

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

On July 9, Biography Channel aired a documentary on Christopher Coke's extradition. Jamaica's national security minister, Peter Bunting, appeared and said, "The Attorney General's Department was essentially at the service of Christopher Coke ... . He had had these nine months to prepare and essentially make Tivoli Gardens into a bit of a fortress."

Bunting has been widely vilified for this statement. On July 11, RJR News reported the JLP demanded an apology and that "the JLP is also claiming that Mr Bunting has also exposed himself to legal consequences as there is no evidence to support his allegations". Sounding more like an opposition satellite, a civil-society group named Citizens for Principle and Integrity (CAPI) asserted that Bunting's "statements had brought Jamaica shame and tainted the island's image abroad".

Seriously? Peter Bunting has brought shame to Jamaica arising out of the Manatt-Coke fiasco? Bunting should apologise? Good grief!

Lest we forget:

May 13, 2010, THE AM LAW DAILY: "... Prime Minister Bruce Golding told his country's Parliament on Tuesday that he had approved retaining Manatt to help resolve the extradition stand-off over Kingston businessman Christopher Coke ... .

Golding contended, however, that it was his ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), not the Jamaican Government, that hired and paid Manatt despite the firm's continuing insistence to the contrary.

"I sanctioned the initiative ... ', Golding said ... , "I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the [JLP], not by or on behalf of the Government."

So, you tell me. Is it Peter Bunting or Bruce Golding who brought any shame to Jamaica? Golding, it was who accepted responsibility while asserting the Government wasn't involved.

But, lest we forget:

Manatt Commission (February 8, 2011):

"Solicitor General (SG) Douglas Leys testified today that he informed the justice minister and sought her permission for representatives of [Manatt, Phelps & Phillips] to sit in on a meeting with US officials in December 2009.

Mr Leys told the commission that she gave him the go-ahead."

(Source: IRIE FM report; February 11, 2011)

Previously, the attorney general had publicly stated she never heard of the name Manatt until Peter Phillips, an opposition spokesman, mentioned the subject in Parliament. Yet, her subordinate, the SG, was fully integrated in the JLP's plan to involve Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP), without knowing, according to Leys, the details of their involvement. Yet he invited MPP to a meeting with US Justice Department officials.

Lest we forget:

February 8, 2011: "SG Douglas Leys today testified he had no regrets about inviting [MPP] to attend a meeting at the United States Justice Department in relation to the extradition request for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

... Leys said inviting the law firm was 'not improper'.

He also testified that the Manatt representative who attended the meeting was not representing the Jamaican Government but was an observer.

... He also said he had sought the approval of Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne for Manatt to attend the meeting after he had taken the liberty of inviting them."

[Source; Jamaica Observer).

Dorothy Lightbourne denied giving Leys any such permission.

But, regardless of whether she gave express permission, the million-dollar question remains: "Observer" for whom? Only two parties had a right to be present. For which one was MPP "observing"? If a third party was MPP's client, surely the SG would insist on being told that client's identity before even asking for permission to let MPP in the room? Suppose it turned out that MPP was representing Coke? Would the SG still ask for them to be allowed in?

One thing is for certain, this wasn't an audition for a government contract. As the SG himself pointed out, there are set procurement procedures for that. MPP was representing SOMEBODY. Who?

Why would Jamaica's SG, a member of the Attorney General's Department, invite to attend a meeting between two sovereign governments a private US law firm allegedly representing a private political party, whose Big Bad Don was in danger of extradition? Could it be that "the Attorney General's Department was essentially at the service of Christopher Coke ..."?

Finally, who can forget the
critical evidence of the attorney general's secretary, Verna
McGaw?

"Lightbourne's secretary, Verna McGaw,
testified that Lightbourne instructed her to email Harold Brady about
the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke extradition
request.

McGaw testified before the commission ...
that Lightbourne had, on September 16, 2009, given her a handwritten
note to type and send to Leys and Brady. The email had the subject line
'extradition' and outlines the extradition process and conversations
that the minister had with acting DPP Lisa Palmer-Hamilton ... and
Jeremy Taylor, also of the DPP's office."

(Source:
Gleaner, March 21, 2011)

Dorothy
Lightbourne first seemed to accept responsibility for the emails but,
after a lunch break, vehemently denied she'd sent them or instructed
they be sent. What cannot be contradicted is that they were sent from
the attorney general's office.

Why are we vilifying
Peter Bunting for deciding not to engage in any cover-up or denial of
the obvious? Are we all about 'image' at any cost? Should he have tried
to polish Jamaica's tarnished image with easily exposed lies or provided
fodder for stand-up comedians by attempting to obfuscate with political
double-speak? Or has he boosted Jamaica's image by establishing himself
as a political leader prepared to acknowledge truth regardless of
consequences?

For too long, Jamaica has been led by
persons preferring to sweep embarrassing truths under the carpet in
preference of keeping the 'image' intact. But there comes a time when
the truth is so exposed; so internationally recognised; so obvious, that
only a lunatic or one prepared to be ridiculed as a fool would try to
deny it.

This is the choice that faced Peter Bunting,
and I personally congratulate him for choosing truth over political
mumbo-jumbo. No doubt, it'll be said that he mightn't have been so frank
had it been a PNP conundrum. But it wasn't. And he
was.

Lest we forget:

Early September
2009: The SG and Harold Brady hold frequent discussions on the legal
issues surrounding the extradition request. Leys said this happened
despite his ignorance of Brady's client's
identity.

September 18, 2009: MPP is retained and
US$49,892.62 paid to MPP.

September 19, 2009:
Jamaica's SG sends a brief of the GOJ's legal issues to MPP (Attention:
Harold Brady).

Peter Bunting hasn't brought any shame
to Jamaica. His statesmanlike facing of the truth has created a flicker
of credibility in what has otherwise been a deep, dark pit of
mendacity.

Peace and love.

Gordon
Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com.