Why stick around? Get lost!

Wouldja believe that, despite my clear explanation in last Sunday's Gleaner ('Purge JLP of back-stabbers'), persons continued to refer to Young Andrew's Senate house-cleaning as "underhanded" and "unconstitutional", along with other not-so-complimentary epithets?

One morning radio talk-show star, seemingly unable to get over her political disappointment or herself, went off on a rant about The Gleaner mixing up Cabinets with senators and about writers wrongly using ordinary statutes to interpret the Constitution which she described as a law apart (words like that) standing above all others. Shiver me timbers!

Sounding to me like someone frothing at the mouth, she bemoaned the damage done to the "independence of the Senate"; and accused the opposition leader of trampling on the Constitution. Trampling? Oh, dear.

Did she read last Sunday's column? Perhaps not. Or maybe she read but failed to understand.

(I, I, I, I was born a loooooser ...) Wow!

Girl, why do you take so long to understand?

I tell you this when I'm here this is 'near'

and if I run away and go a way back here

that you can hardly hear me this is 'far'

Wow! We're on Sesame Street!

One last time for those with learning difficulties:

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Senate described as 'independent', especially vis-à-vis the political parties. In fact, the entire constitutional structure of the Senate suggests the exact opposite. If persons of independent political mind are appointed, that would be a deliberate act by one or both of the political party leaders. Nothing in the Constitution mandates either to do so.

Members of Parliament are elected by the people and, as such, have a certain security of tenure. Senators are selected by special MPs (prime minister/leader of the Opposition) and, accordingly, serve at those special MPs' pleasure. In practice, the methods used to ensure that would be agreed (expressly or impliedly) between selector and selectee.

Why would a Senate selectee believe he had a right to refuse his selector's request to stand down? What right does he have to that Senate seat, save the party leader's show of confidence by appointment? It's an unpaid post; there's no employment contract; nobody applied for the job; nobody was elected. The process began and ended within the party leader himself, who is thereby authorised to remove any senator. At that point, a senator's only legal or pragmatic choice is the level of dignity with which he leaves. Either he voluntarily gives up his seat or the chair is yanked from under him.

Suppose the party leader had, at the outset, asked senators-to-be to cement his grip on the chair by signing blank, undated, unspecified letters of resignation. Senators-to-be have simple choices. Sign; walk away; or insist that the letter contains conditions as to the issues that may validate its use. If senators-to-be so insist, the burden of choice shifts to the party leader, who may agree or walk away, eventually appointing someone else.

So, if educated adults sign undated, unconditional letters of resignation, they've thereby agreed from the get-go to resign at a moment's notice, whenever the party leader requires them to do so. It matters not which specific issue was troubling the leader at the time.

undated resignation letters

Senators-to-be, anxious to add prestige to their résumés, rushed to sign without insisting on specificity. If you signed these unspecified letters, what'd you think would happen if, for example, you started to vote with Government on issues unrelated to the original concern? Blank, unspecified, undated letters of resignation are like blank cheques. They can be used at any time for any reason.

And listen to this: A, B, C, D, E and F.

Never leave yu homework on the shelf

(I , I, I, I was born a loooooser). Aha!

An' now yu listen to this, girl; G, H, I, J, K and L.

The wax demand the music all these days.

Put yourself in the position of opposition leader. You've appointed eight senators. Government has two-thirds majority in the Lower House. For whatever reason, Government proposes a law (passed by the Lower House) changing Jamaica into a one-party state. One of your senators signals he's about to give Government the vote it needs to pass the Upper House. He won't resign. You have an undated, unspecified letter of resignation freely given to you at his appointment. You may have mentioned a particular concern then, but this crisis makes your initial concern minor in comparison. What do you do?

Take another scenario. No fundamental change is threatened; no parliamentary revolt is imminent. But some of your appointees have publicly exposed their utter contempt for you as party leader also for your acumen and intellect. Consequently, you lose confidence in their ability to work with you as leader. You fear they may undermine the party.

You receive a confidence vote of party delegates (57% to 43% landslide). What do you do? Wait politely to see Brutus looming up behind you on the Senate floor? Wait for those back-stabbers flushed out by the delegates' vote to cause untold damage to the party while attempting another ouster?

C'mon, man!

Now, put yourself in a prime minister's position. You've appointed 13 senators. Three have become disenchanted with you. They neither challenge you nor cross the floor. They use their votes, in conjunction with the opposition senators, to persistently block every piece of legislation necessary to implement your government's policies. What do you do? Leave them alone to frustrate government policy on the basis that the Senate is 'independent'?

C'mon, man!

Fortunately, as I tried to explain last week, the law and the Constitution support a party leader's right to fire senators at his/her pleasure.

Section 35(3) of the Constitution provides: "The remaining eight Senators shall be appointed by the governor general, acting in accordance with the advice of the leader of the Opposition ... ."

The subsection is carefully worded. The GG does NOT act "in consultation with", or "after consultation with", the opposition leader, which would be interpreted as the GG deciding on the appointment but informing the opposition leader before making it public. In this case, the GG MUST appoint "in accordance with the advice of the leader of the Opposition". Hence, opposition senators are 'selected' by the opposition leader and appointed by the GG on the opposition leader's instructions.

Still in doubt? Section 1 (12) of the Constitution provides:

"(12) The Interpretation Act, 1889, as in force on the appointed day, shall apply, with the necessary adaptations, for the purpose of interpreting this Constitution and otherwise in relation thereto as it applies for the purpose of interpreting ... acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom."

So, words in the Constitution have no different meaning than they would in statutes. Section 35 of the Interpretation Act provides:

"35. Whereby or under any act a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the authority having power to make the appointment shall also have power to remove, suspend, reappoint or reinstate any person appointed in exercise of the power."

contrary intention

Since no contrary intention appears in the Constitution, it's pellucid beyond peradventure that our Constitution gives Young Andrew power to remove any senator. A letter in Thursday's Gleaner, in propounding that a contrary intention appears in the Constitution, asserted, "The Constitution provides clear instructions on how and when a senator may be removed from office." No, sir. The Constitution doesn't provide for 'removal' of Senators but for situations in which a Senate seat becomes vacant. For example, Section 41 (1) provides, in part:

"The seat of a member of either House SHALL BECOME VACANT (my emphasis) ...

b. if he resigns his seat"

which can't, by the stretch of any imagination, be construed as 'removal'.

All that's left is method. Young Andrew obtained signed, undated blank resignations from his appointees. How'd he get these letters? Did he purloin them from the signatories' underwear while they slept? Was a gun held to anybody's head? Or were they freely signed and handed over by the senators-to-be?

Now listen! M, N, O, P, Q,R, S.

Come on in, children, and do your bes'.

'Cause if yu don't yu haffe sit in de park and say

U, V, W, X, Y and Zed, always think and use yu head.

The good news is Talk-show Star's co-host used her head, refused to be bullied, and expressed a contrary and eminently sensible view more reflective of real-life eventualities than did more famous and allegedly more educated 'leader'. It's elementary. Once you have the power to remove a senator, the issue of your methodology is one for Emily Post (not Emily Host) to analyse.

For 25 years, I've suggested an elected Senate. A Senate elected by proportional representation avoids the pitfall of double landslides and imaginary constitutional crises like the present. At five per cent of popular vote per seat, fringe groups like the NDM, Ras Astor Black's or Miguel Lorne's Movements might have a say in our parliamentary affairs.

David 'Scotty' Scott was a member of singing/dancing group The Chosen Few around the time Lloyd Lovindeer was similarly engaged in The Fabulous Flames. Legendary producer Derrick ('The man with two voices') Harriott saw his individual talent; plucked him from the group; and the rest is history. With seminal hits like Sesame Street, Draw Yu Brakes, and Riddle I Dis, the late, great Scotty rocked every dance party in Jamaica for decades.

Talk-show star has been (no pun intended) trumpeting K.D. Knight's opinion that Young Andrew was "unethical"? Now, there's an unbiased source on JLP affairs. It's "unethical" to ask for resignation letters to be freely given but "ethical" to precipitate a sudden, unjustified, unnecessary leadership challenge; lose; then demand control over the winner's discretion?

C'mon, man!

What kind of man clings stubbornly to a position of influence despite his boss telling him to go? What kind of man signs undated, unspecific, blank resignation letters and complains because they're used to end his services?

What kind of man calls his boss ignorant, stupid and afraid of intelligence, tries to get the boss fired, and then, after failing to have the boss fired, demands that the boss keep him on?

C'mon, man!

Peace and love.

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