PRESIDENT of the Senate Tom Tavares-Finson suggested Friday that Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Kathy-Ann Pyke’s strong objection to a Bill increasing the retirement age of the DPP and the auditor general is merely the protest of a disgruntled employee.

In a 10-page letter, dated July 27, 2023, on the letterhead of the Office of the DPP, Pyke asked for the postponement of any further vote on this amendment and the launching of an investigation into the operations of the Office of the DPP (ODPP) to ascertain its viability “given the massive haemorrhaging caused by the constant departure of prosecutors”.

“Furthermore, I also recommend that an objective/anonymous poll be conducted to ascertain from the whole staff whether they are in support of, and have confidence in, the leadership of Ms [Paula] Llewellyn.

“If this is done I am certain that you will find that there are serious issues to be addressed which may warrant a conclusion that the proposed amendment should not be effected at this time in respect of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, if at all,” Pyke said in the letter which was addressed to Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck.

The content of the letter was brought up on Friday by Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate Peter Bunting when he rose to object to the motion moved by Senator Matthew Samuda to suspend the standing orders of the Senate to enable him to take a second reading of the Bill, ‘An Act to amend the Constitution of Jamaica to provide for an increase in the retirement age of the director of public prosecutions and the auditor general and for connected matters’, and to take it through all its concluding stages.

The letter was copied to Tavares-Finson; Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate Peter Bunting; Attorney General Derrick McKoy; Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte; and Leader of the Opposition Mark Golding. When Bunting again sought to pull out aspects of Pyke’s letter in his contribution to the debate on the Bill, the Senate president interjected, saying: “It is clear that it is a document that could be characterised as a statement from a disgruntled employee.”

Bunting and Opposition Senator Lambert Brown objected to his statement.

“The Government side, including yourself, trying to describe the writer of a letter… [as] disgruntled is not becoming of us as senators,” Brown said.

Tavares-Finson then advised Senator Bunting to put the letter on the record of the Senate rather than taking out snippets.

“You’re looking at a situation where there is a department of government, and one employee has written and you are prepared to lift that document and give it status that it might not have, so let the people decide…put the document onto the record of the Senate,” he said.

Government Senator Matthew Samuda, who was piloting the Bill, then rose on a point of clarification, asking: “The document or letter you’re referring to is the one that is written by Senior Deputy DPP Kathy-Ann Pyke… On a point of clarification, is this the same person that resigned in Montserrat under a cloud of suspicion?”

An emotive Senator Brown immediately shouted, “Don’t go there. Don’t go there…This is an abuse!” The Senate president then told him to calm down, noting that, “This is exactly what I was trying to prevent, you know.”

In an article published in 2014 in the MINI Alive news publication, it was reported that Pyke, who was Montserrat’s first DPP, resigned 10 months before her contract was due to expire. It said she resigned by mutual agreement.

Earlier, in his objection to the motion to suspend the standing orders to put the Bill through all its stages, Bunting said that he, jointly with the Leader of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives, have instructed their lawyer to write to the governor general and the attorney general, “to express our grave concerns with the intention to debate and pass this Bill in the Senate today after it was rammed through by a majority in the House on July 25th”.

“In fact, it is the view of learned counsel… that if the legislation is enacted in the present terms it would breach the provisions of the constitution in various respects because it would be an attempt to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed procedure for the extension of the tenure of a DPP and, worse, the exercise of a constitutional power for an improper … purpose,” Bunting said.

He said the Opposition has instructed its lawyer to file a constitutional claim if the Bill is enacted in the present terms.

“If the legislation is brought into force and implemented, pending the determination of that claim there would likely be considerable uncertainty within the ODPP in the period during which the intended amendment would be enforced. In particular, officers who would have been anticipating promotion will potentially face up to seven more years of the incumbent remaining in office, but with no certainty as to the outcome — [the DPP serving] a total of 22 years. This may be expected to result in heightened instability, and attrition from what is a critical part of the criminal justice system.

He said the Opposition’s lawyer has requested that the governor general not ascend to or bring into operation the proposed constitutional amendment with respect to the DPP until the determination of the impending litigation.

Following a robust debate, the Bill was passed through a divide, with 11 senators voting “Yes” and six objecting. Three senators were absent.