SOME weeks ago, this newspaper published findings from research conducted by Don Anderson, which reflected a breakdown of trust between citizens and institutions that are primary agents of leadership and socialisation in the society. The results as reported in the Jamaica Observer are as follows:

Parents, guardians and teachers enjoy the trust of the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans polled by pollster Don Anderson, while the police, community dons and politicians score low on the trust chart.

According to Anderson, a whopping 91 per cent of respondents pointed to parents and guardians when they were asked, “Who are the people that are most trusted?”

Teachers followed with a heavy 81 per cent, parsons and religious persons were next with 68 per cent, while media personalities and business persons recorded trust scores in excess of 46 per cent each.

According to Anderson, the persons in whom respondents placed the least trust were lawyers at 39 per cent; the police, 28 per cent; community dons, eight per cent; and politicians seven per cent.

When the pollsters asked people to state what they regarded as the most negative thing about Jamaica at this time, Anderson said that just over half (53 per cent) of respondents cited corruption.

One feature of these findings which the research highlights and which seems to be of interest at this time is the low score that lawyers received. We have always been accustomed to hearing lawyers being the subject of jokes which often cross the line between being funny and demeaning. I believe that the poll reflects not just just respondents’ interaction with individual lawyers, but their perception of how the legal justice system works and seeks to administer justice. Law as a discipline and institution has evolved over several millennia to become very obscure and esoteric to the extent that only the initiated can interpret its meaning and application, notwithstanding the fact that it impinges on the life of every citizen. Thankfully, one does not have to belong to the legal fraternity to know that a system of justice is about more than the letter of the law and its interpretation by the initiated, and that there is a difference between law, morality and justice, even though they overlap at many points.

An Internet search reveals that law is defined as a binding or enforceable rule, a piece of legislation, and a legal system; morality is defined as accepted moral standards, how right or wrong something is, and virtuous behaviour; while justice is defined as fairness, a system or application of law, and validity in law.

By these definitions it is clear that law does not have to be moral, while justice involves more than the element of th3e letter of the law and its interpretation. Morality on the other hand, though broader in scope than the letter and interpretation of the law, does not exclude the application of the law as a determinant of morality.

Our history is one that has taught our people the points of distinction. We know how the law has been enacted and applied to give legal justification to the reprehensible system of slavery, and that justice and morality were only possible through the breaking of the law and civil resistance, leading at times to violence. That is the story of the slave revolts, the Morant Bay uprising, and the labour uprisings of 1938. We know, too, of the laws that allowed only a privileged few the right to vote, which was changed with rising nationalism in 1944. The reality is that the law continues to have legitimacy and authority while not being moral or just in some of its expressions, whether because it is archaic, inequitable, or downright unjust in the contemporary context.

The blurring of the lines has also been facilitated by an interesting development in the life of our body politic: the entry of lawyers into politics, constituting at times the largest single professional grouping in the Parliament of this land. When one recalls the ratings given to lawyers and politicians in the Don Anderson poll, then it becomes obvious that there is an issue of trust, based on the responses. If the Parliament makes the laws, and the politicians are among the least trusted in the society, and a significant number of the politicians are lawyers, then we must ask ourselves what are the credibility issues that are at the heart of the people’s perception of the rule of law and governance.

At the moment there are several developments that bring these issues to the fore as there seems to be attempts to politicise some major legal matters. The first concerns the public expression of apparent differences of opinion between Director of Public Prosecution Paula Llewellyn and Contractor General Greg Christie. The issue surrounds the contractor general’s recommen-dation of interdiction of several political figures for perceived infractions of the law. Having waited for what he obviously considers an undue length of time for a response from the DPP, the contractor general chose to express publicly the lack of a response from that office. In short order, a ruling was subsequently forthcoming from the DPP rejecting the recommendation of the contractor general and indicating that in all cases there was no reason to proceed further with legal action.

There is a lot that is troubling about this development. In the first place, Mr Christie has been perceived by society as a rare person in both private life and in public service one who is committed to the elimination of any semblance of corruption in the public arena. While corruption has legal definition, there is no doubt that it includes morality and justice issues. For this reason, it is interesting to see how when public figures in Jamaica and overseas are accused of corruption, they quickly look toward the legal loophole and declare that “they have broken no law”. They are usually not able to say that what they have done is the right thing, and hence some have had to resign in light of the moral issues that their actions have raised for the public, and often for their families which have been scandalised by the moral overtones of the actions of this offending public servant and family member. Former Minister of Justice KD Knight may be right in pointing out a few days ago that perhaps the Office of the Contractor General is deficient in lawyers who have expertise and experience in criminal law, suggesting that the judgements being made in that office may be coloured by an approach that is informed by all three elements of law, morality, and justice, and which may not be able to stand when examined from purely an analytical legal perspective and the legal manoeuvrings that it permits.

In recent times, criticism and antagonism have been directed at the Office of the Contractor General as political figures have been at the centre of some of its investigations. Clearly, political figures should not be subject to unfair practices simply because of their public roles. It may be, however, that the zeal of the contractor general is not contagious and the way in which he makes his findings public may not be finding favour in some quarters, but it would be a tragic day for this country if attempts are made to ‘castrate’ or render the office ‘impotent’ when the number one problem that seems to be facing the country is corruption. I would caution all to be very judicious in the way we approach this matter, and not let our political bias or commitments lead us to actions that are inimical to the transformation and development of this nation at a time such as this.

The director of public prosecution has earned a reputation of having an outstanding and independent legal mind. She, like the contractor general, occupies a position which is not subject to the dictates of any other person or authority in this country. It would be tragic if the DPP and the contractor general were to operate in such a way that they should inadvertently add to people’s distrust of our legal system and the legal processes in the country. The DPP has a very wide portfolio, an insurmountable mountain of cases, and inadequate staffing resources. It would appear that the DPP has an obligation to ensure that all cases coming before that Office are examined thoroughly in terms of their legal merits and their ability to stand up before the court. Based on my limited understanding of the law, there will sometimes be differences of opinion between these two offices in the interpretation of the law with respect to individual cases referred for interdiction.

I think of these two public servants as pillars of law and justice in this country, and attempts to discredit or undermine them and the offices they hold have serious implications for the integrity of the system of justice. I would, therefore, hope that the two officers will sequester themselves from using the public media as the sphere for dealing with differences of opinion on matters of national import, and as colleagues, map out the way in which they will go forward in handling such matters.

The trial of persons involved in the light bulb scandal is also a matter of grave concern raising questions of law, morality, and justice. While the matter of the Cuban light bulb trial is in the court, I cannot help but take note of the fact that the age of technology in which we live means that it is not just confined to the chambers of the court, but is in the public sphere via the electronic and print media. As the legal process continues, the members of the public are in a state of shock as the trial seems to be taking a strange twist — the DPP seems to be the villain on trial! There seems to be no reason to question the legitimacy of the legal process which is being pursued as the law books prescribe, but it certainly has very troubling aspects to it. The case is receiving public attention because of the political figure who is at the centre of the trial, at least, initially. It is quite possible that this trial could end by the time this article is printed. Whatever the outcome, those who are not versed in the law, and who constitute the majority of this population, will be asking the question as to whether law, morality and justice have figured in this case and its outcome. And further, what lesson should we take away from it about how individual citizens and public servants can operate in the conduct of their day-to-day affairs with or without impunity. The nation waits to see if the Anderson poll has given us an accurate picture of where we are as a nation and how the public institutions of this nation function to confirm or to transform the public perception of reality.

Montego Bay at 30

I want to express my appreciation to Lloyd B Smith for his column earlier this week which offered a reflection on the state of Montego Bay after thirty years as a city. He has been the only consistent voice drawing attention to the derelict conditions which have overtaken the city while the authorities seem to stand by and watch. He will perhaps be the subject of negative attacks from those who are offended. While not claiming to be anyone’s spokesman, I can assure him that there is a religious tradition in scripture in which those who do not like the message seek to attack or kill the messenger. Fortunately, not even that can thwart the truth.