PRIME Minister Bruce Golding seems to be a victim of his own eloquence, once again. On Tuesday, he dismissed questions raised by Opposition MP, Dr Peter Phillips about contractual arrangements for representing the Government in treaty matters in the United States.

“The Government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever, in relation to any extradition matter,” he asserted.

By Thursday afternoon (the time of writing), the prime minister was not less assertive. Indeed, he volunteered in a statement that he had made some checks after speaking in Parliament and discovered that there had indeed been discussions involving Jamaica’s Solicitor General Douglas Leys, attorney Harold Brady and a US firm, though no deal was struck.

But while Mr Golding continues to stick to the line that the Jamaican Government has not engaged any US firm “in relation to any extradition matter”, there is a huge credibility gap between the official statement and information in the public domain.

And it also underscores the widening gap between the prime minister and public opinion over his steadfast refusal to have the Jamaican courts adjudicate on the United States request to extradite Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke to face charges of firearms and drug trafficking. Increasingly, Mr Golding’s utterances sound more like political gamesmanship and less like the lofty principles he invokes.

The matter of legal representation arose when Dr Phillips sought to find out if the Government had retained attorney Harold Brady as a consultant and authorised him to engage a US law firm and lobbyist, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, to represent the Jamaican Government in treaty and political issues involving the United States.

Dr Phillips based his questions on a raft of documents available on the website of the US Department of Justice and which have since been confirmed by several news organisations. They are filed in conformity with the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which requires US citizens and firms that represent foreign governments to provide regular information on their activities.

The documents list Manatt, Phelps and Phillips as the registrant, and the Government of Jamaica, through Harold CW Brady of Brady and Company, as “the foreign principal”.

The services to be provided by the firm “will include contacts and meetings with the executive branch regarding existing political and economic matters, including existing treaty agreements between Jamaica and the US”.

Further, “The undersigned, Harold Brady, consultant to Government of Jamaica, hereby confirms that he is authorised on behalf of the Government of Jamaica to approve of the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, as set forth in this letter.”

Since the agreement was entered into last October, the firm has listed several actions undertaken on behalf of the Government, including two meetings with a deputy assistant secretary of state and a telephone contact with a national intelligence officer. Harold Brady and Company has been billed, and paid, just under US$50,000 for these services.

Against all of that Mr Brady meekly explained that he made a mistake when he signed the agreement with the firm representing himself as a consultant and agent of the Government of Jamaica. The mistake had been corrected, he claimed, but Information Minister Daryl Vaz says no correction has been forthcoming.

Mid-air conversation

The prime minister said Thursday that while solicitor general Leys was on a flight to Washington to meet State and Justice Department officials, he was approached by Mr Brady who advised him that he knew a law firm that could be of assistance. Apparently that was all.

The terse statement left many unanswered questions and the prime minister has a lot more explaining to do because it is clear that some people are lying. He needs to tell the country exactly what he knows and when he knew it. Was the Leys-Brady mid-air conversation just coincidence?

How could a senior attorney like Mr Brady mistakenly believe that he was authorised by the Government of Jamaica to engage one of America’s top law firms for US$100,000 per quarter to lobby the US government on treaty matters between two sovereign states?

How could a major US law firm mistakenly believe their client was the Government of Jamaica? Why would senior officials of the US State Department meet with a partner of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips to discuss treaty matters between Jamaica and the US if they were not convinced that the firm was duly authorised to make enquiries on behalf of Jamaica?

Why would Mr Brady make payments to the firm on behalf of the Jamaican government if he did not believe he was authorised to act on their behalf?

Why was the prime minister not in possession of all the facts when he spoke so haughtily in the House of Representatives on Tuesday?

Was it a repeat of the situation when Mr Golding made a string of damning accusations against Derick Latibeaudiere just as he was being dismissed as governor of the Bank of Jamaica last year?

It should be recalled that after Mr Golding’s scathing characterisations, Mr Latibeaudiere, in a radio interview, challenged the prime minister was not in possession of all the facts when he made those damning accusations in Parliament. Quite simply, the former governor did not collect $38 million in salary and allowances, nor did he refuse to negotiate aspects of his compensation with Finance Minister Audley Shaw as alleged, and which was offered as the argument for removing the BOJ governor in the midst of the IMF negotiations.

Will the prime minister discover more about the Washington representation? Will there be parallels with the still ongoing drama over the matter of Ed Bartlett and American Airlines?

In that case, Contractor General Greg Christie suggested in a report to Parliament that a sanction could be imposed against Tourism Minister Ed Bartlett, Director of Tourism John Lynch and Executive Director of Jamaica Vacations Ltd Lionel Reid for breaching the rules in signing a US$4.5-million airlift-guarantee deal with American Airlines.

Christie maintained that Bartlett made false and material misrepresentations in his September 9, 2008, written submission to the Cabinet about the deal. “In plain language, the minister purposefully misled the Cabinet,” Christie claimed.

“This is an incontrovertible and yet-to-be-explained fact which even the minister himself cannot deny, having regard to the weight of all of the sworn and written evidence which has been entered upon the record,” charged Christie.

Despite the serious charges against Mr Bartlett, Mr Lynch and Mr Reid, the prime minister has not uttered a single word of rebuke, let alone taking any action.

Is the prime minister losing his grip on statecraft as he struggles to find a viable political resolution to the request to extradite the most influential figure in his constituency? His choices are not easy, and no amount of legal hop-scotching can mask the ugly truth of the attendant political risks of Mr Coke appearing in court.

First, given what happened after Mr Coke’s father, Lester ‘Jim Brown’ Coke, died in a jail cell fire while awaiting extradition nearly two decades ago, the fear that armed criminal gangs may unleash mayhem in retaliation cannot be ruled out. This could threaten social stability in a country with one of the world’s highest crime rates and one of the most wobbly economies.

The second view being openly discussed in bars, homes and on the street is that a trial here or in the US could create a trail leading to highly placed individuals in politics and society and could threaten the very survival of the Government. That could cause anyone to misstep or misspeak.

kcr@cwjamaica.com