The decision by a woman who can be regarded as Jamaica’s leading legal luminary, Ms Paula Llewellyn, to walk away from the job as director of public prosecutions (DPP), makes her a clear casualty of the convoluted constitutional space in which the country finds itself.

At Jamaica Observer press time, lawyers and other court stakeholders were walking around like headless chickens, asking each other what would happen, after the Constitutional Court struck down an amendment allowing the DPP to extend her stay in office for another two years.

The controversy rose to the surface in mid-2023 when the Government used its massive parliamentary majority to push through that constitutional amendment allowing the DPP to get a second extension beyond the retirement age of 60.

That was to have allowed Ms Llewellyn, a distinguished public servant, to stay in office beyond her 63rd birthday last September, a position we have supported.

The parliamentary Opposition, however, objected fiercely and then took the matter to court.

In the language of Jamaican folk culture, ‘story come to bump’ last Friday with a ruling by the Constitutional Court.

As explained by this newspaper, the Full Court ruled that, while the amendment increasing the retirement age of the DPP from 60 to 65 is constitutional, a new provision introduced via a second amendment giving the DPP the right to elect (choose) to remain in office without any role by the prime minister or the Opposition is “not a valid section and is severed from the constitution because the process remains unchanged for extending the retirement age”. Consequently the three-judge panel said the section is “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect”.

The court explained that the “incumbent DPP has already reached the extended retirement age” which means the application of the new section “cannot lead to another extension in office by way of an election (choice) on the part of the incumbent DPP as this is unlawful”.

“Section 2(1) of the Act, as currently formulated, has raised the retirement age without addressing the extension of tenure in office. Consequently, any extension of the DPP’s tenure under this section must adhere to the same process outlined in the previous section 96(1) of the constitution, which remains unchanged by the Act,” the court said.

The judges added that “the only lawful method to extend the DPP’s tenure remains by way of an agreement (consultation) between the prime minister and the Opposition leader”.

The ruling was interpreted by the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) and apparently by some legal luminaries to mean that Ms Llewellyn is not now the DPP and has not been since her first extension in office ended last September.

However, the Government disagreed with the ruling and says it will appeal.

Further, the Attorney General’s Chambers rejected suggestions that Ms Llewellyn was no longer the DPP, arguing that “no order has been made to that effect” — until its statement late Sunday evening advising that Ms Llewellyn could no longer carry out her duties for the time being.

Further complicating matters is the claim by Opposition Leader Mr Mark Golding that there is no Public Service Commission to appoint someone to act in her place.

It’s more than clear that we are in a constitutional crisis, and Ms Llewellyn is only the first casualty.