What the attorney general did not say

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I register my full and unequivocal support for the points raised in The Gleaner editorial titled “ECJ convention sensible”. The comments by the attorney general were correct and represented no real revelation of facts or truth. However, what was very significant was what else relating to the matter being discussed that he DID NOT say. We all will agree that context matters, and especially in legal matters as the attorney general is fully aware of not only as a lawyer, but an experienced legal academic.

The constitutional provision that he volunteered to emphasise to the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Committee and country was not offered in the abstract. Rather, it was in the context of the claim of gerrymandering of political boundaries by the Government that he advises. What the esteemed office holder never bothered to emphasise is the very cogent and relevant fact that the constitutional authority of the said committee and Parliament has accepted the recommendations of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica, and its predecessor for over 45 years. The convention of not disturbing the recommendations of the ECJ has served to protect and deepen the country’s democratic success over the said 45-year period and the fact that this averted the hundreds of killings and dislocations that occurred prior to this practice. The attorney general must be mindful that he stands the risk of possibly becoming complicit with consequences that he will not be proud of, and cannot excuse himself from, if he knowingly failed to share pertinent advice and guidance in the manner and forum as he advised on the constitutional provisions.

The attorney general’s comments are given in the context of national general elections due within six months, where there are legal provisions restricting the period before which constituency boundaries can be changed before elections are due. In addition, the ipso facto changing of constituency boundaries by way of the enacted 15th parish, under the disguise of development, which is an act of gerrymandering, gives further context to the omission of the ECJ convention by the attorney general. This is further compounded by the defiant statement by Minister Desmond McKenzie that the JLP will not surrender the Government to the People’s National Party. Taken all together, the attorney general’s omission can only serve to cause many to feel that our democracy is under very serious threat. This was further abetted by the minister of justice, who, out of nowhere, deemed it important and urgent to caution the country not to be surprised if the general elections due under prevailing normal circumstances may not be held in the normal time frame.

My saving hope is that neither the attorney general nor the leadership of the ECJ will sacrifice their respective professional and personal integrity for any selfish and narrow political expedient desire of anyone or party. I am also quite mindful that our last act is the most lasting, if not permanent.

FITZ JACKSON

Member of Parliament

South St Catherine