Mystery MOUs breaching Jamaicans' rights, says Phipps
Published:Tuesday | February 1, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Noted attorney Frank Phipps yesterday charged that four mystery documents cited in the Dudus-Manatt commission of enquiry were being used to trample on the constitutional rights of Jamaicans.
The documents form a package of classified memoranda of understanding (MOU) involving Jamaica, the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK).
Ambassador Evadne Coye, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, said during yesterday's meeting of the commission of enquiry that the confidential documents were signed by representatives of the former People's National Party (PNP) administration when K.D. Knight was foreign affairs minister and Dr Peter Phillips was minister of national security.
No knowledge
Coye, who was being cross-examined by Phipps, said members of the current Govern-ment knew nothing of the documents that were signed three years before they came to office.
She told the commission that public servants, including her, searched for the documents for months before they were found in the Ministry of National Security.
US officials, she said, produced the documents to strengthen their claims that the extradition request for accused drug kingpin Christopher 'Dudus' Coke was binding.
Some attorneys charged that the MOUs, which were kept away from the media, were in breach of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
Before the commissioners, led by Emil George, decided to accept the memoranda as evidence, the attorneys wrangled over the need for the documents to be brought into evidence.
"We must decide whether the MOUs will be dealt with in chamber," George said as part of his introductory remarks.
Make it public
"That is precisely the ruling that I wish to challenge," countered Phipps. "The significance of this is that the MOUs purport to breach the rights of every citizen, and that is why it should be dealt with in public."
Phipps added: "It is in the public's interest that the matter of the MOUs be heard in public ... . It is precisely how the matter has evolved in relation to the Interception of Communi-cations Act."
But George insisted that the matter would be discussed in chamber outside of the media glare.
Reacting to a concern raised last week by Knight, George cited evidence to show that he was empowered to rule that the documents could be used as evidence.
Knight had described such a decision as irregular.
Correspondence from the minister of national security and the Attorney General's office confirmed remarks by Patrick Bailey, the attorney for former state minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Dr Ronald Robinson, that both the US and the UK were not averse to the documents being presented as evidence, but strongly advised against them being circulated to the media.
George retreated in chamber and re-emerged within 20 minutes to rule that the MOUs would be accepted as evidence and kept in the custody of the commissioners.
But even so, their contents were not released to the media.
Winston Spaulding, the attorney for Solicitor General Douglas Leys, stressed that the issue of the circulation of the MOUs ought not to cloud that of whether they had any validity in law.
Unaware of contents
Under cross-examination from Phipps, Coye insisted that she knew nothing of the contents of the classified documents.
Coye told the commission that the issue of the MOUs was raised about January 2010 during a meeting at Jamaica House when the prime minister inquired whether any of a number of relevant Government officials knew of the existence of memoranda between Jamaica and the US.
She said she got hold of the memoranda nine months later and gave them to Senator Marlene Malahoo Forte, junior minister in the foreign affairs ministry, who was asked to chair a bilateral meeting between the US and Jamaica.
Hugh Small, the attorney representing the prime minister, queried whether Coye ever read the documents, to which the permanent secretary responded no.
Asked whether she regarded the documents as a treaty, Coye maintained that she had not read the documents.
As a general principle, she described MOUs as the lowest level of agreement between states.
She admitted under cross-examination from Small that she was surprised when she found out during her quest that the MOUs appeared to have circumvented the foreign affairs ministry.