Cabinet weighs in on Samuda, CIB gridlock
THE PROCESS has formally begun to have the courts break the deadlock over ownership rights to the estimated $4 billion in Seprod share dividend earnings, now under the stewardship of the Coconut Industry Board (CIB) and which Karl Samuda, minister of industry, commerce, agriculture and fisheries, contends rightfully belongs to the State.
“Cabinet has recommended that a decision be taken. It has recommended that the attorney general apply to the courts for a decision regarding the ownership of the Seprod shares,” Christopher Gentles, chairman of the CIB, yesterday told a stakeholder seminar looking at the finance and investment prospects for the development of the regional coconut industry.
“It’s common knowledge that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Coconut Industry Board have some significant differences, and it is the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” Gentles reminded representatives of the Alliances for Action at the agriculture ministry, St Lucia Avenue, New Kingston, office.
Describing the event as an opportunity to speak about the great plans for the future of Jamaica’s coconut industry, the CIB chairman sought to downplay the impact of the impasse between Samuda and the CIB Board of Directors.
“As you know, in every family, the presence of a little bit of money can cause challenges,” he told forum participants.
WORKING FOR A COMMON GOOD
Donovan Stanberry, permanent secretary i n t he agriculture ministry, also put a positive spin on the issue over which parties remain deeply divided, declaring that t he ministry had been working with the statutory body for their common good.
He said: “Unfortunately, sometimes what gets reported is the not-so-good part of that relationship, but I want to assure everybody here today that the ministry’s interest in the Coconut Industry Board transcends the issue of getting a few dollars from them for development of agriculture.
“Our greater interest, frankly speaking, is to ensure that the Coconut Industry Board, as the major commodity organisation responsible for the development of coconut in Jamaica, really has a business plan that sets out a strategy to expand coconut production all over Jamaica,’ said Stanberry. “Such a business plan has, in fact, been done and presented to us, preliminarily, and we are very happy at what we see, and we are hoping that we can roll it out because, in fact, the potential is there.”
“It’s common knowledge that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Coconut Industry Board have some significant differences, and it is the 800-pound gorilla in the room.”
ALL’S NOT necessarily well because it ends well. Sometimes there is still work to be done to put things right. So, the fact that Prime Minister Andrew Holness facilitated Bryan Sykes’ swearing-in yesterday as Jamaica’s chief justice doesn’t mean that the harm he did to the judiciary by his maladroit handling of the appointment has automatically been repaired.
Our hope, though, is that the fact that Mr Holness’ misadventure persisted for only a month means that the wounds were not too deep, the scar tissues won’t fester, and that, to the extent that they remain, they stand as reminders to the folly of prime minister and executive overreach. Or, put another way, this episode should be a teaching moment for Mr Holness and his successors.
Justice Sykes’ predecessor, Zaila McCalla, as is required by the Constitution, retired on January 31 on her 70th birthday. Justice Sykes was named to act in the post, an action that many interests, including this newspaper, believed was constitutionally questionable ina circumstance where a clear vacancy existed; that the acting position wasn’t occasioned by an emergency; and that it was an interim posting to cover the hiatus between the departure of one chief justice and her declared, but not immediately available, successor.
GREATER CATASTROPHE
But the prime minister’s greater catastrophe, perhaps, was his suggestion that Justice Sykes was on probation, and that it would be his performance in the acting role that would determine if he got the job permanently. Mr Holness’ intent, of course, was to appear a thoughtful and stern leader who demanded accountability from all in government.
He didn’t, however, reckon with the larger concepts of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, especially the fact that it wasn’t within the purview of the political/executive arm of government to direct judges, or appear to do so. Mr Holness crossed the line. He finally retreated, but only after a stubborn, then vain, persistence. We hope he has learned a lesson that will enhance his premiership.