An unprincipled lot

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I listened with interest to the discussions on CVM Television's Direct programme hosted by Garfield Burford on Wednesday evening. The panellists were attorney-at-law Raymond Clough, Julian Robinson of the People's National Party, and Dr Horace Chang, a deputy leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and minister of water and housing.

In the discussions, Dr Chang attempted to explain the Government's and the party's thinking on the Christopher Coke extradition request and the continuing controversy surrounding the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP). Like the prime minister before him, Dr Chang insisted that the law firm was engaged by the JLP and was at no time instructed to act on behalf of, or represent, the Government of Jamaica in relation to the Coke matter. MPP meanwhile has stridently contradicted this claim and has 'threatened' to present documentation to confirm their engagement by the Government - not the JLP.

Dr Chang acknowledged that several meetings were held between MPP, United States' (US) state officials and Government officials. He characterised these meetings as nothing more than "social events". He noted that on at least one occasion the gathering took place at the residence of Anthony Johnson, the former Jamaican ambassador to the US, and that in such a setting the introductions and discussions would have been of a purely casual nature. In other words, these were not "official meetings" and the participating government officials, even if introduced as such, were not acting in their "official capacity".

From Dr Chang's tone, it seems that the meetings were inconsequential, so much so that he feared the suggestion from one of the panellists to chronicle the meetings and discussions for the benefit of the public might now prove difficult.

Outrage

I am concerned that Dr Chang, a deputy leader of the JLP, member of parliament and Cabinet minister, can be so blasé about a matter that has provoked such national and international outrage. When asked by one of the panellists what caused the Government to change its position and sign the extradition order, Dr Chang pointed out that the request has been signed not by the "attorney general" but by the "minister of justice" - a very important distinction, as it turns out. He went on to clarify that as minister of justice, Dorothy Lightbourne is a "politician", and politicians are allowed to "exercise discretion".

Dr Chang asserts that as a politician the minister must take account of what the prime minister in his recent broadcast loosely referred to as "all the factors". It seems, therefore, that as a politician, the minister is at liberty, and should perhaps be expected, to dispense with principle at will. Political expediency is paramount, a critical factor even in dealing with legal and constitutional matters.

Rather than clarifying the issue, Dr Chang only confirmed what we already knew ... politicians simply cannot be trusted!

I am, etc.,

F. A. STEWART

levystewart@gmail.com