Op-ed: J$500 stand-off
Published:Friday | January 28, 2011 | 12:00 AM
If there is one thing Harold Brady cannot be accused of is lack of chutzpah. Lest you forget, and plan to cross him, he's the man that has sued a sitting Prime Minister.
But leader of the country is one thing. Would Brady dare to face-off with one of his own? Would he buck the eminent Emil George QC? Apparently, yes.
For Brady has taken the position that to answer to the Prime Minister's commission on Manatt and Government's handling of the extradition of a reputed strongman would be to hurt his lawsuit against the PM that he says is in defence of his reputation.
It hardly seemed possible, but with Brady's defiance, the internecine Manatt-Dudus conglomeration of who did what, when and where, and on behalf of whom, has become more salacious.
George, unlike the perception of PM Golding, did not waffle in the face of such pugnacity. The QC's decision was clear and precise: Book him.
Or more precisely, he ordered that Brady be cited for disobedience. Big difference. For the latter comes with - and this must have weighed heavily on Brady, successful lawyer that he is - the punishment of a J$500 fine if found guilty.
Granted, if Brady cannot afford the J$500, he does face up to three months in jail. But can we agree that our lawmakers, by allowing such lenient penalties to prevail in the law, are guilty of enabling Monday's test of the system.
A past prime minister is famously reported to have said the law should not be a shackle. It should not be easily ignored, either; but Jamaica's statutes are replete with non-shackling 'fine or be confined' laws.
Perhaps there is someone else, somewhere in Jamaica's history, who similarly refused to be sworn to testify in a commission of enquiry. Or, perhaps, Brady is the first of his kind.
That a lawyer is the one, arguably, to defy the law in pursuit of his own lawsuit is a bit unsettling, even if you do not reject, as George and others did, Brady's rationale that he could hurt the pursuit of justice in his own cause and his claim to attorney-client privilege in protection of foreign law firm Manatt.
Jamaica is hungry for answers on whether the Prime Minister stands with the broad populace or with narrow interests, and Brady chose not to engage.
The PM's commission, though its terms of reference are not so spelled out, will litigate the PM's reputation. Time will tell whether Brady helped or hurt PM Golding's cause.
- Lavern Clarke