Dear Editor,

Where grey areas exist in the interpretation of a law, as in the present case of the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) jurisdiction and powers, the courts are the proper place to seek a resolution.

So, to hear the Opposition leader refer to the impasse as “untenable” in indeed a disingenuous stance.

The only extreme position is that taken by the OCG to ignore the process before the court and involve the DPP in a matter that is already before the court. Needless to say, this act will consume DPP Paula Llewellyn’s precious resources and time to deal with this referral.

That this impasse, as Holness asserts, will have any negative effect is remote, because in the international community it is accepted that interpretation of law is the purview of the courts. Certainly, they don’t expect government officials to behave as has happened in the recent ‘Dudus’ extradition matter.

Holness is wilfully blind to the real issue before the court for resolution: The scope of the OCG’s jurisdiction. The court is not asked to limit or weaken the OCG’s power; it is asked to declare the scope under the existing Act and make a ruling on the specific course of action the OCG wants to pursue.

How can Parliament redefine that which is before the courts, as Holness suggests? If it is at all possible, wouldn’t that create a vicious circle? Any student with a basic knowledge of civics would find this suggestion risible. Further, if the court were to rule in favour of the government, on aspects of a law which was introduced by the Seaga Government in 1986, would Holness “run wid it”?

Holness is being strictly political in the matter of the OCG and seem to have a problem with reality — wanting to formulate government policy on investment and development.

Perhaps it’s the anniversary of his defeat acting on him.

Norman Lee

Brampton, Ontario