Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Kathy Ann Pyke has found herself at the centre of the controversial decision by the Government to amend the constitution to increase the age at which the DPP should proceed on retirement from 60 to 65.

The Opposition has strongly opposed the move which would see the incumbent DPP Paula Llewellyn remaining in office for another two years at which time she will be 65, or until she’s 70 since the Governor General can extend the tenure of the office holder under special circumstances.

READ: DPP can now serve up to age 70

Like their colleagues in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Opposition senators voted against the amendment in the Senate on Friday. However, the government used its majority to pass the bill which will now go to the governor general for his assent.

At the start of Friday’s sitting, leader of Opposition Business, Peter Bunting, pushed for the debate to be suspended. It was at this point that he mentioned a letter written by a senior prosecutor outlining several problems at the DPP’s office and the possible unconstitutionality of the amendment, as to further reasons why the government should not proceed with the matter.

Bunting did not name the prosecutor.

In the lengthy letter to Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Delroy Chuck dated July 27, Pyke argued that the justification given by Chuck, who piloted the bill in the House, that the age ceiling for both the office of the DPP and the Auditor General is five years shorter than that provided under the Pensions Act “does not accord with settled principles of constitutional law…”

She pointed out that the constitution is the supreme law and any law that is in contravention of the constitution “is void ab initio”.

Stressing that the constitution is the standard and crucible by which the validity of legislation will be tested, Pike said “Acts of Parliament, and other forms of legislation must therefore conform to the Constitution, otherwise it will be struck down for invalidity”.

“This application of this principle was recently seen in the NIDS case, Julian J Robinson v the Attorney General [2019] Jam FC Full 04, where the legislation was struck down for unconstitutionality, and most recently the cases involving detention of persons under the state of emergency, The Minister of National Security et al v Everton Douglas et al [2023] JMCA,39,” Pike outlined.

Pike also argued that “… any dichotomy between the Pensions Act and the Supreme law of the land, which is perceived, cannot be resolved by simply amending the Constitution in these circumstances so that it conforms with the Pensions Act. Rather, the Pensions Act must conform with the provisions of the Constitution. The rationale posed for the amendment is therefore flawed”.

On the issue of succession planning at the office of the DPP, Pike opined that “the customary transition process allowing for the transition of a successor seems to be stymied at this point, although there are competent and capable senior officers presently on staff”.

She outlined that presently there are five senior deputies, one of whom is a Kings Counsel, with over 20 years at the bar and herself, a former Director of Public Prosecutions of Montserrat, with 31 years at the bar.

“Of note is the fact that Mr Jeremy Taylor, KC, is only the second prosecutor to have attained the rank of Kings Counsel, on his merit, that is without being the holder of the office of director. His Lordship Justice Lloyd Hibbert, retired, is the first,” Pyke wrote.

She said it bears reiterating, that constitutional amendments ought to be for good and compelling reasons based on the interest of society, now and in the future.

“It ought not to be based on considerations appropriate solely to the interests of an individual,” she wrote.

And according to Pyke, “The present director was granted an extension in 2020 on the basis (we are told, having never seen or heard any written disclosure from the government or the director), that the justification for the extension includes that there are several high profile matters which requires her attention, including the Klansman trial and Uchence Wilson trial. We note that these cases have now been completed, moreover, none of these cases were prosecuted by the director herself; in fact, two of the senior deputies previously mentioned were the chief prosecutors in those matters”.

Pyke questioned the reasons for again extending Llewellyn’s term in office, having regard to the fact that an extension of five years had been requested in 2020 but the government, after due consideration. granted only three.

She painted a picture of a demoralised staff at the office.

“I must note that myself, and other officers have grave concerns about the viability and growth of the office under the leadership of Ms Paula Llewellyn as Director of Public Prosecutions. Some have even expressed a lack of confidence in her leadership”.

“An effective leader is one that inspires, motivates, mentors and provides equal opportunity for the growth and development of staff and succession to ensure institutional cohesion and continuity,” she added.

According to Pyke, under Llewellyn’s leadership, the office has consistently lost some of its most gifted legal minds.

“The attrition rate has never been as high as is currently being experienced in the past seven years, in the history of the office. It will continue as there are many persons seeking to leave,” she said.

Meanwhile, government senator Matthew Samuda, who rose during Friday’s debate on a point of clarification while Bunting was quoting from Pyke’s letter, said “Is this the same person that resigned in Montserrat under a cloud of suspicion?”

He was shouted down by Opposition members who accused him of abusing his position.

“Don’t go there, don’t go there, this is an abuse man,” Senator Lambert Brown said, supported by Senator Sophia Fraser Binns.

Senate President Tom Tavares-Finson, who had attempted to persuade Bunting not to read from the letter, said “this is exactly what I was trying to prevent”.

While closing the debate, Samuda dismissed Pyke’s letter as a personal vendetta which he said had come from “clearly a very personal, disgruntled employee”.