Lightbourne parts with own attorney's views
Published:Thursday | March 17, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Minister of Justice and Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne startled those present at the Manatt-Dudus commission of enquiry when she revealed that she disagreed with the interpretations of an eminent attorney-at-law she had engaged to defend her, after she was sued by Christopher 'Dudus' Coke in the aftermath of her signing the authority to proceed with his extradition.
Lightbourne said she did not agree with some of the interpretations of her lawyer, R.N.A. Henriques, which were tendered to the Supreme Court on her behalf in the case against her.
The attorney general also backtracked on claims she initially made to the Manatt-Dudus commission of enquiry that she buckled to public pressure and signed the extradition request for Coke.
"When you yielded to the desire of civil society to put the matter before the court, you were sued by Mr Coke's lawyers?" asked Patrick Atkinson, the attorney for former National Security Minister Dr Peter Phillips.
"I did not yield to civil society but when I looked at what happened, I signed the extradition request to put the matter before the court," said Lightbourne.
The justice minister said she resorted to Section 13 of the Constitution after circumstances influenced her decision.
Responding to questions from her attorney, Lloyd Barnett, last week, Lightbourne said the intensity of the public outcry last year, influenced by political opposition, pushed her to sign the authority to proceed with the extradition request.
Twist in testimony
Lightbourne maintained that she refused to sign the authority because it was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional.
However, she said civil society felt she was overstepping her authority in her refusal to sign the extradition request.
"That is why I sought a legal opinion," Lightbourne said in reference to her attempt to get a declaration from the Supreme Court in relation to her discretionary powers to sign the request.
However, Lightbourne said the planned court action did not work out.
"The whole thing became political," she said.
"And so you signed away Mr Coke. So if civil society brings pressure to bear, you are going to sign away people's rights," Atkinson said.
"It's not Coke ... . This thing went way beyond Coke," Lightbourne responded.
Lightbourne also said she could not recall what was contained in some of her own affidavits in response to Atkinson's queries.
Lightbourne admitted that while Coke's affidavits were sent to her, she did not read all of them.
The attorney general said she was made aware of their contents when they were read to her by the attorney for the People's National Party, K.D. Knight, during cross-examination.
Atkinson: "When you yielded to the desire of civil society to put the matter before the court, you were sued by Mr Coke's lawyers?"
Lightbourne: "I did not yield to civil society, but when I looked at what was happening I signed the extradition request to put the matter before the court ... ."
She added: "I did not agree with sections of the affidavits (filed by Henriques ... ."
Atkinson: "You never saw the document in the case against you?"
Lightbourne: "I had nothing to do with affidavits."