A.J. Nicholson

THE EDITOR, Sir:

It was with utter consternation that I read the lead story in Tuesday's Gleaner which was based on statements reportedly made by Dr Alfred Sangster, a member of the Public Service Commission, that the prime minister directed the governor general to dismiss for 'misbehaviour'.

Your article states that "Like the prime minister, he has criticised the PSC for failing to carry out a court order for the reinstatement of Lackston Robinson as acting solicitor general". Dr Sangster should know that that court order itself was not clear as to whether Mr Robinson was to be 'reinstated' in the public service generally, or in the substantive post of acting solicitor general.

In any event, the prime minister has, never given this as a reason for the route that he has taken. In his letter to the leader of the Opposition, pursuant to his constitutional duty of consultation, the prime minister gave three specific reasons for his proposal that the commissioners be retired for misbehaviour. There was a procedural reason, namely, that the commission had wrongly permitted Cabinet Secretary Dr Carlton Davis to be present while they were interviewing applicants for the position of solicitor general. The statement by the Cabinet secretary, himself, which was also carried on the same day, makes it clear that there was nothing improper in this procedure.

Cases before the court

The other reasons given by the prime minister were based on an allegation that since there existed a hostile relationship between the retiring Solicitor general and an applicant for the position, the commission should not have relied 'in part' on the evaluation of the respective applicants that was given by the former solicitor general.

There are cases before the court to determine whether these reasons could possibly support a charge of misbehaviour and whether the members of the commission were given any opportunity to answer this grave accusation. Whatever may be the result of these cases, it is clear that the reasons on which the prime minister has relied for his directive to the governor general have nothing whatsoever to do with the grounds on which Dr Sangster seeks to justify the prime minister's action.

It is, however, when Dr Sangster deals with his own role in this matter that he gives the whole show away. According to the report of the interview with Dr Sangster, he says that "he was not a part of the commission at the time of the ... court ruling in favour of Robinson". If this is correct, why has he been fired along with the other members? What is his 'misbehaviour'?

Dr Sangster goes on to say that he agreed with the other four members of the commission that Dr Vasciannie "should be selected to succeed Michael Hylton as solicitor general". Now comes the interesting part. Dr Sangster states that at that time, he was not aware of a newspaper article written in the year 2002 by Dr Vasciannie that was critical of Mr Golding for having left the NDM to rejoin the JLP and that on learning about this article, he made "three attempts to have the PSC members review the recommendation but he was not successful in having it withdrawn".

He did all this, according to him, because "the utterances of Professor Vasciannie could undermine the potential relationship between the office of the solicitor general and the prime minister". Who told him so? It certainly could not be an unprovoked assumption on his part. The prime minister has never publicly given this as a reason for his actions. So, Dr Sangster "lets the puss out of the bag", finally, adding to the tangled web that has been weaved in this entire affair.

I am, etc.,

A.J. Nicholson, QC

Opposition Spokesman on Justice