There has been much discussion and even demonstration by lawyers regarding the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of an illegal firearm. The concern from lawyers seems to be largely centred around the mandatory minimum of 15 years being given for this offence, even if the firearm is an imitation that has not been used in the commission of a crime. The lawyers are resolute that judges should be given more discretion in the matter and the Government should revise the mandatory sentence provision in this respect.

I am not sure that taking to the streets and suspending their commitment to their clients, even for two days, was the proper approach to take by members of the defence Bar. To wear gowns to indicate the gravamen of their concern may have appeared to the learned people as the right thing to do, but even to the incurious onlooker, the sight of lawyers parading on the streets in protest, as if they were in a Halloween parade, seemed awkward, if not odious.

It seemed even more telling, unsettling, and even reprehensible to see lawyers withholding services from their clients because they have a gripe with the Government. A lawyer in private practice is an employee of the person who hires him or her. They are paid a retention fee and their fiduciary responsibility would suggest they ought to be spending reasonable time attending to the best interests of their clients.

I wonder how many of the learned gentlemen and women who went on “strike” had client’s business to attend to? More importantly, when a lawyer withdraws his or her service, against whom is this action directed? The Government? Were clients informed that they were withdrawing their services and all pending appointments cancelled? It may sound trite, but it should be borne in mind that it was not with clients that lawyers had a disagreement. It is not the clients who did them any harm.

If you have a grievance against a legislation, the principle ought to be that your clients not be the ones to suffer in your expression of disapproval of that legislation, however strong you feel about your disagreement. You have a fiduciary duty to your clients and that should be foremost in your minds at all times. This is the essence of your ethical obligations to your client. There has to be another way, but, essentially, withdrawing your services cannot be that way.

The same principle applies to the doctors who withdrew their services last Friday over how doctors’ overtime pay should be calculated. The airwaves of both traditional and non-traditional media were pregnant with the lamentations of many who suffered because of the doctors’ “strike”. Not only were members of the public inconvenienced in having to travel several miles to a hospital and paying two-way fares to get to the facility and back home, but lives were imperilled by this action.

Again, every member of the medical profession, due to his/her ethical training, well understands the implications of the Hippocratic oath and his/her sworn duty to save lives or, at any rate, attend to the well-being of his/her patients.

During the COVID-19 pandemic you saw the steadfastness of our doctors and nurses in fighting to preserve lives even when theirs were put at severe risk. It is true that our medical personnel often work beyond their call of duty and often in appalling conditions without the resources to do their work effectively — and they are not well paid to do this. They also endure long hours for which they are not duly compensated.

It, therefore, boggles the mind that the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT), which is the government body with responsibility to settle the dispute, should be taking such a long time to hand down a ruling. Discussions started in 2021, with January 2025 being the date when compulsory arbitration should have been arrived at. Hearings concluded on April 1, 2026 without a ruling, and to date, no conclusion seems apparent. There is no excuse for this inordinate delay.

Organisations in Jamaica, especially those under government auspices, are notorious for adopting the posture of snails in resolving disputes. Alacrity is only seen when a strike or any other forceful action is engaged by aggrieved parties. It is not unlike the burning of debris on the roads to get them fixed. I, therefore, empathise with the doctors in this matter and well understand the action taken.

But there is a caveat. I am still resolute in my belief that going on strike and putting people’s lives in danger cannot be the way to go. We know that you were not protesting your patients who have done you no wrong, but is putting lives at risk and causing unnecessary burdens on them the best approach? I think not. I would urge our doctors and lawyers to revisit their ethical obligations to the people they serve.

Let me return to the 2022 gun law and the mandatory sentencing provision. The Government claims the introduction of the legislation has been responsible for the dramatic decrease in deaths by the gun. So the direction that should be taken is one that strengthens the legislation instead of weakening it. I believe the jury is still out on this interpretation by the Government.
There may be some causality here, but what cannot be assailed is that murders by the gun have been dramatically reduced over the past three years. This, in my view, is more due to the enhanced surveillance capability of the constabulary force and the fact that criminals now know there is a greater possibility of them being caught and punished for their misdeeds. One of the greatest deterrents to crime is to know that you will be caught and punished. And this knowledge, in practice, has increased exponentially.

We have a more resourced police force that has given its members greater mobility, and there is a greater willingness of the citizenry to cooperate with them in giving information. Not least is the fact that the persistent depoliticisation of the force, making it a more independent body, has boosted it in significant ways. These improvements have increased the morale of the men and women in uniform.

It is true that for a country facing the kind of gun violence that Jamaica has tough penalties for possession and use of illegal firearms must never be ruled out. But any good governance must be firm with discretion. The law must not be watered down, and I see no reason judges cannot be given more flexibility in sentencing, especially in situations involving juveniles and the use of imitation firearms. There need not be any adversarial position between public safety and individual justice. To strike this balance is not as easy as it may look, and one prays for an abundance of wisdom in this regard.

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