VIEWED from any angle, the Senate resignation letters saga gripping the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and its leader, Mr Andrew Holness, is a huge mess.

No doubt this predicament will haunt the party for a long time and provide fodder for the ruling People’s National Party at the next general elections.

It will be interesting to see what the JLP will try to do to counter the image that it is being headed by a man whose actions have been found inconsistent with the Constitution of Jamaica, and that it has among its ranks people who are so eager to sit in the Upper House that they are willing to sign undated resignation letters to be held over them like a big stick, ensuring that they toe the party line, regardless of how they may view issues being debated.

Readers will recall that last Friday the Constitutional Court declared that Mr Holness’s request for pre-signed and undated resignation letters from persons to be appointed Opposition Senators, and his use of those letters to oust Mr Arthur Williams and Dr Christopher Tufton were “inconsistent with the Constitution, contrary to public policy, unlawful and, accordingly null and void”.

The court was also very harsh on Mr Williams, chiding him for being the author of the letters. For that, Mr Williams has apologised to the country, and we accept his apology, even as we acknowledge that he demonstrated poor judgement in the matter.

Mr Holness has since said that he acted on advice from attorneys, among them Mr Williams, in whom, he said, he had “reposed the utmost trust and confidence” as persons competent in advising him on constitutional matters.

His overriding consideration, he said, was in discharge of his “duty to safeguard the spirit and intent of the constitutional provisions which provide for the protection of the Constitution from changes which may not be in the best interest of the Jamaican people”.

“My action therefore, in accepting the advice of the claimant, regarding resignation of senators, in that manner, was to ensure the effective administration of the Government for the people,” he added.

We have no reason to doubt Mr Holness at his word. However, we cannot disagree with the Court’s interpretation that the Constitution intended that senators are expected to function with a free will. In other words, the decisions they make should be theirs, and not because they fear being removed by the person who appointed them.

As Justice Batts quite correctly stated in the declaration: “A decision by a senator to follow or obey the instruction of the Leader of the Opposition should be arrived at because that is the wish of the senator. It must not be the result of coercion.”

In all of this, the point raised by Mr Holness in this week’s Sunday Observer about the independence of the Senate and how that affects governance may well be worth examination.

Maybe it is time for us to look at the possibility of having a truly independent Senate and how that would fit with the Westminster system of Government.