JAMAICA | PNP says recent constitutional amendment violated the integrity of the DPP's Office

Recent Constitutional  Amendment - A Dangerous Precedent,  Violating  the Integrity of the DPP

We write to record our protest against the onslaught on the Supreme law of the land, which was completed in the passage of the amendment to the constitution on Friday in the Senate.

This is the first time in our history that an amendment to the constitution was undertaken without extensive consultation with the opposition and all relevant stakeholders.

It is a dangerous precedent which we hope will never be repeated in the annals of our history.  

The history behind this amendment is that the Government sought to extend Paula Llewellyn’s tenure till she is 65 years old. They followed the then applicable constitutional strictures which required consultation with the opposition. 

The opposition objected to the extension and  the Government compromised by an extension for a smaller period than five years. This smaller period is now almost extinguished. The Government and DPP were coy about whether there would be another extension to allow her to continue to 65 years.

 It was pointed out to power brokers that the text of the Constitution does not permit such an extension. The Government’s response was to clandestinely draft and foist upon parliament a Nicodemus provision which required only their support and seeks to achieve through the backdoor what it could not achieve directly.

 The DPP’s tenure was “extended” by an act of parliament which “overwrote” the text of her previous contractual arrangement. 

We find the foregoing to be shocking and unacceptable on many levels. One of the guarantees that all citizens have is that the office holder is “independent” and “impartial”. This guarantee is unwittingly undermined by the mishandling of this amendment issue and the background of this issue. 

The current DPP is the 7th DPP since independent Jamaica. She is the longest-serving DPP in Jamaica’s history. She had surpassed the former record holder Mr Forte whose almost 11 years reigned, in 1988, surpassing all previously held records when he left his august office to join the Court of Appeal, which he served with distinction becoming its president.  

 He was the longest-serving DPP for almost 30 years until Paula Llewellyn clipped his record. 

It is without doubt that since 2008 to the present, the DPP has allowed her voice to be heard on many issues. She personally played a role in the prosecution of the Kern Spencer matter (her office plays a far more subdued role in Ruel Reid’s prosecution). 

 Her 15-year record has surpassed all other office holders.  She has also benefited from far more investment in her office than every other officeholder.  It would be interesting for the public to receive:

(a) a copy of her extension;

(b )a report on the effectiveness of her tenure compared to all other officeholders;

(c) an analysis of the effective conviction rate under her tenure compared to other officeholders;

(d) a report on her implementation of the Muirhead committee’s recommendation;

(e) a detailed justification of what she plans to accomplish in 2.5 years that could not have been accomplished in her record 15 years in the post

(f) an investigation into her unprovoked personal attack against Ms Pyke utilising ‘confidential’ information received by her in her official capacity to attack Ms Pyke personally.

(g) an analysis of her effectiveness in her position

(h) an analysis into the “lie” that no other person at her office is equipped to fulfil the role of DPP

(i) an investigation into the allegation raised by Ms Pyke and Ms Llewellyn

Based on the foregoing, Ms Llewellyn would need to step aside to allow the investigation to be completed.  We call on her to do the honourable thing and remit office at the earliest opportunity to allow this well-needed investigation to be done.

If Ms Llewellyn’s allegation against Ms Pyke is true and even if it’s untrue, Ms Llewellyn, by her conduct in releasing that press release, has disqualified herself from holding the role of DPP.

She would have misused her power as DPP to make an ‘eccentric’ person run amok on the defence, the court and the country for her own gain. Despite ’ prior warnings’, She failed to act against this ‘eccentric’ person until it was in her personal interest to seek to discredit the second most experienced prosecutor in the land to secure her own selfish interest.  

We find her press release to be distasteful and unworthy of the holder of such an august constitutional office. 

Ms Llewellyn must reign in her tendency and appreciate that she is the DPP. She may use confidential information to assist her in making informed decisions. It is not a licence for her to publish this confidential information to assist her speaking points in personally attacking a public servant . 

The relevant office should investigate this egregious breach and misuse of ‘information’, and disciplinary action should be taken against the DPP for her most personal and distasteful attack against a selfless letter written by Ms Pyke to legislators, which third parties unceremoniously seemingly leaked.

If the DPP’s action remains unpunished, it will become a licence for other officeholders to leak confidential information and silence citizens in the public’s  employ to the detriment of the national interest.  

Even if you disagree with the foregoing, you must note that the DPP is now in another invidious position concerning her effective 2nd extension in office. The 2nd extension will now attract another lawsuit.

The government was locked in litigation over the last 2.5 years defending its 1st extension of her tenure. This decision is slated to come out on the 31 July 2023. After this decision, it will face another legal challenge for the effective 2nd extension. 

One has not seen any other DPP faced with a similar legal challenge over the extension of her tenure. 

The improper manner in which the current extension was undertaken violates the tenure, spirit and objectives of the relevant provisions of the constitution. We call on the DPP to secure the legacy and integrity of her office and refuse to accept an effective 2nd extension, through the backdoor, of her tenure.

We applaud Ms Kathy Pyke in relation to her profile in courage. We have read her missive and believe it was written in the best interest of the people of Jamaica and her office.

We are unconvinced by the implicit argument from the Government of Jamaica that there is no other competent person in the ODPP to carry out the role of DPP.

In fact, information that reached us suggests that any of her senior deputies  (Mr Taylor KC, Ms Thompson, Ms Millwood-Moore and Ms Pyke) are far more respected and feared by the Defence bar than the current DPP herself and any one of them would make a better DPP. 

In light of the foregoing, we look forward to Ms Llewellyn putting her office over her own selfish interest (something which seems to escape her response to Ms Pyke) by refusing to accept the illegal extension offered to her by this government through the backdoor. 

In closing, we say to Ms Llewellyn (an otherwise agreeable DPP), “Please secure your legacy and your integrity by closing the door on your way out as you leave office in September 2023.”

Isat Buchanan,
Chairman,
PNP Human Rights Commission

-30-