I want the emails - Davies

Daraine Luton, Senior Staff Reporter

ONE HUNDRED AND TWO days ago, Prime Minister Bruce Golding told Parliament that email correspondence between Solicitor General Douglas Leys and United States law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips would be made public.

But since his admission to sanctioning the Manatt move and a subsequent apology, the prime minister has stayed far from speaking about the thorny subject. Parliament has also not seen those emails.

However, Dr Omar Davies, the opposition spokesman on finance and member of parliament for South St Andrew, is awaiting the resumption of Parliament so the prime minister could shed more light on the role of the solicitor general in the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Parliament is currently on summer recess.

Davies had asked Golding whether the email correspondence could be made public. The prime minister responded in the affirmative, but when the documents were not released, Davies put his request in the form of questions to the prime minister in the House.

Davies said he hoped his questions would be answered when Parliament returns from its recess. he argued that the emails might help to determine the integrity of the office of the solicitor general.

"I am concerned that the Office of the Solicitor General was not compromised in the dealings with both the local attorney as well as with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips," Davies said.

Golding had told Parliament that Leys was communicating with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips by email, believing he was talking to Harold Brady.

"Mr Brady, from as far back as September, had contacted the solicitor general to discuss issues relating to the extradition request," Golding confessed.

"These discussions included email correspondence sent to Mr Brady (by Leys) at an email address provided by him, which, it was subsequently discovered, is an address belonging to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips," Golding told Parliament in May.

Clarify the picture

Despite the prime minister's comments, Davies said access to the emails would certainly clarify why a firm had been invited to meetings at that level - especially since according to the prime minister, its services were not needed - and why the representatives of the firm would be placed in a position to offer to draft the press release following the meeting.

According to Davies, "the whole story can't be closed until that issue is dealt with.

"It is one thing if Manatt, Phelps was dealing with the party, (Golding's Jamaica Labour Party), but I want to know what the dealings between the Solicitor General's Office and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were," Davies said.

Chronology of Events

June 15, 2010:

Sunday Gleaner makes Access to Information (ATI) request for "all the emailed documents containing the conversations between the solicitor general and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips". The application was sent to the Ministry of Justice.

June 16, 2010:

Brenda Smith, documentation manager at the justice ministry, responds by way of email confirming receipt of the ATI request and formally advises The Gleaner that the application was officially transferred to the Attorney General's Department for processing.

June 24, 2010:

Our news team received a letter signed by Marlene Aldred on behalf of the attorney general which noted that the ATI application had been transferred to their chambers. The missive contained a pledge to contact The Sunday Gleaner "at an early date in regard to" the application.

July 29, 2010:

The Sunday Gleaner received another letter from Aldred. This time she said the documents were "being reviewed with a view to determining whether they can be released pursuant to the Access to Information Act". She also noted that the process was taking more time than had been expected. As a result, the Attorney General's Chambers needed, "pursuant to Section 7 of the Access to Information Act", to extend the period for an additional 30 days.

August 18, 2010:

The Gleaner's legal department sends a strongly worded letter to Aldred stating that the newspaper did "not consider the reason for the extension proffered by" her as satisfying the reasonable-cause requirement of the stated provision of the act.

August 20, 2010:

The Attorney General's Chambers backtracks and grants access to the controversial emails.