Apart from a few detractors, the universal consensus is that Paula Llewellyn, director of public prosecution (DPP), has done a sterling job in what has been traditionally considered a male-dominated space.

This column has had occasion to congratulate her on her work, especially her accessibility to the media and her ability to educate the public and take us through the minefield of complex legal matters that often bedevil Jamaican jurisprudence. She has that ability to condense complex legalese so the ordinary person can appreciate and have a better understanding of the subject at hand. The country will forever be indebted to her for this.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the second extension of her term in office is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Llewellyn has rightly removed herself from the post until the matter is resolved. It must be noted that she has not resigned, but the ruling of the Constitutional Court has rendered it untenable for her to continue, at least for now. For her to have wanted to continue would, in my view, be out of character for the eminent DPP. More importantly, it could trigger unnecessary controversy regarding cases over which she would preside. Since then, the Government has appealed the decision and seems willing to take the matter to the UK Privy Council, Jamaica’s final appellate court, if necessary.

On the face of it, and from a layman’s perspective, it does not appear that the Government has a strong case for appeal. I had a very uneasy feeling when it rushed the matter through Parliament and succeeded by virtue of its large majority in the House. The Opposition was not consulted on the matter, and the public was not given a chance to discuss it and hopefully bring some influence to bear on its servants in the Parliament.

Some people would want to simply brush this aside as being unimportant, but it speaks fundamentally to the question of our democratic governance. The Government seemed hell-bent on getting its way, which it did by its parliamentary majority. But the matter has now come back to haunt it and to once again put in focus its commitment to democratic principles. Indecent haste in rushing important legislation through Parliament with the expectation that you will succeed by your tribal support is hardly any basis on which democratic governance ought to be constructed.

By appealing this decision, I believe the Government, through the Ministry of Justice, is being hard-headed in a matter for which temperance and humility may suffice. I do not know what the Government is hoping to achieve here. There is no ambiguity in the court’s ruling. If it is not clear about the court’s ruling, a simple request for clarification is all that is needed. What is the Government really trying to prove? Is the Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck peeved that the court ruled against the Government in this matter? Does he feel personally rebuffed and is now on a path of self-exoneration? Does he feel that his personal standing in the matter is under siege and that he has to defend himself? The Government would be well advised not to take the country down this road and go to the Privy Council. To do so is to subject itself to ridicule and humiliation as occurred in the botched jury tampering mess in the Vybz Kartel case.

Far be it from me to advise the illustrious (former?) DPP. But I would suggest to her, as I would my younger sister, not to allow herself to be ensnared in the political miasma that seems to be emerging. If she thinks she can return to her job any time soon, then she has been whistling through cemeteries recently. Do not allow your sterling career to become a victim of the Government’s obduracy in this matter. Do not allow the good name you have built over the years to be sullied by the obstinacy of what is clearly emerging as a political fight. Resign and take yourself from the picture. There is a great deal more you can lend your hard-won legal experience to than to end your career in the dustbin of uncertainty, if not strife. You deserve better than this.

So Speaker Holness has relented

The Speaker of the House of Representatives Juliet Holness has done the right thing in belatedly publishing the Attorney General’s opinion on the tabling of reports. The process still seems a bit ambiguous and further clarification is craved. She has also addressed the matter of her missive against the former Clerk of the House Valerie Curtis. One can be sure that if Curtis listened to the brief tributes that were paid to her last Tuesday in the Parliament, she could not have found any comfort in her soul that they were well meaning. The brief comment from the Speaker about her contribution to the House must have rung hollow.

There is no doubt that the former clerk has been deeply hurt and humiliated by the Speaker’s broadside against her in a letter sent to 62 parliamentarians and which went viral throughout the country and abroad. The clerk’s integrity was clearly savaged in the letter. The Speaker seems to think that this is a mere difference of perspective between herself and Curtis. As the adage goes, “He who feels it, knows it,” and what transpired was more than a difference of perspective. It was humiliation, plain and simple. You do not accuse a sterling civil servant of dereliction of duty and bringing the Parliament into disrepute and believe that the subject to which the missive is directed would not be deeply hurt by it.

Thus, the crux of the matter is her humiliation occasioned by the aspersions cast on her character after 30 years of service, spoken of so eloquently in the brief tributes to her. Nothing but a full-throated apology to her will suffice. It is only when this is done that she will feel comfortable to sit in the more fulsome tribute of which the parliamentary leadership on both sides of the House spoke. One would urge that this be done with dispatch.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.