The Prime Minister Andrew Holness-led administration says it welcomes Friday’s ruling by the Court of Appeal which it said affirmed that its decision to pass legislation which extends the retirement ages of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Auditor General was lawful.

The appeal court ruled that the Constitutional Court erred in April when it struck down the second bar of the 2023 constitutional amendment extending the tenure of Paula Llewellyn as DPP.

Information Minister, Senator Dr Dana Morris Dixon said in a release that, “The fact is the Government has over the years as a matter of policy extended the retirement ages as it relates to several offices. The passage of legislation concerning the ODPP and the AGD is a continuation of this policy.

READ: Llewellyn stays as DPP – Gov’t wins appeal

“We were always confident that our actions were not only lawful but good policy and in line with what obtains in several modern jurisdictions. It is very unfortunate that this issue was politicized,” Dixon said, adding that the Government is pleased with the work of its legal team which included King’s Counsels Allan Wood and Senator Ransford Braham, along with Neco Pagan and Kathryn Williams.

In the summary judgment handed down Friday morning, the Appeal Court panel led by Justice Christine Straw said it had determined that upon the promulgation of the Amendment Act, the incumbent DPP “automatically benefited” from the extension it granted. Furthermore the panel disagreed with the stance of the Constitutional Court that such an extension would require agreement between the prime minister and the Opposition leader.

The Appeal Court said the 2023 amendments to the new section, 2(1), which increased the age of retirement of the DPP from 60 to 65 and section 2(2), which gave the right to the DPP to elect to remain in office despite the role of the prime minister and Opposition leader assigned by the Constitution regarding an extension of tenure, were valid.

In 2023, the Government, through a majority vote of both Houses of Parliament, pushed through amendments to sections 96(1) and 121(1) of the constitution. The amendments, through a new section, 2(1), increased the age of retirement of the DPP from 60 to 65, and added a new section, 2(2), giving the right to the DPP to elect to remain in office despite the role of the prime minister and Opposition leader assigned by the constitution regarding an extension of tenure.

The Opposition filed a lawsuit challenging the extension, arguing that the amendment was unconstitutional and should be struck down on the basis that the DPP had already received one extension in office in 2020 when she turned 60 and so should not benefit from a second.

In April, the Full Court — comprising justices Tricia Hutchinson Shelly, Simone Wolfe-Reece, and Sonya Wint Blair — ruled that while the amendment to the Act increasing the retirement age of the DPP from 60 to 65 is constitutional, the second amendment is “not a valid section and is severed from the Constitution because the process remains unchanged for extending the retirement age”. Consequently, the panel said the section is “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect”.

The April 19 ruling resulted in Llewelyn stepping aside after 16 years in the position with an interim acting DPP, Claudette Thompson appointed for six months effective April 22. An extension was granted following the expiry of the first for Thompson.

That same month the Government, through the attorney general, filed an appeal against the ruling of the Constitutional Court.