DPP – Doubtful Public Position
WHAT FORTUNE to be born in this era! We have seen our first female prime minister, chief justice, and commissioners of correction and Customs, and were it not for the shameless bias, and yet unexplained actions of the powers that be, we would have seen our first female commissioner of police. Don’t take the latter for ‘Granted’.
History has blessed us with the opportunity to see our first female director of public prosecutions (DPP). Standing on the shoulders of her distinguished predecessors, Paula Llewellyn walked into the new millennium after completing her first year in the office.
A quarter of a century later, there is now controversy as regards the extension of her retirement age from the statutory 60 to 65.
It never had to be this way because consensus in such an important office is paramount in a democracy, and anything else runs the risk of not just bringing the stature of the office into disrepute, but importantly, it raises questions about the neutrality within the justice system.
In a field where knowledge is at best ambiguous, and where evidence is not quite the same as it is in science or the academy, there are a few people whose mass of knowledge can be treated as reliable and useful. Given the nature of law, much of what exists is one set of opinions versus another set, even when looking at irrefutable facts upon which both agree. Therefore, there is no dishonour when a higher court agrees, or disagrees, with the decision taken by a lower court because the entire system of the practice of law is predicated on juxtaposed learned persons, arguing before their peers.
Many senior lawyers, both prosecutors and defence attorneys, are more knowledgeable than judges simply because they have been in practice, sometimes before many years before the judges were born. Indeed, there are professors of law who are defence attorneys, and I am willing to bet that their publications are from time to time resorted to by members of the bench.
REPOSITORIES OF KNOWLEDGE
The point is, there are some persons, who though imperfect, are really repositories of knowledge in their respective field. From my standpoint as an individual who has an idea as to where to find the law, I make no bones that the body of prosecutorial knowledge possessed by Llewellyn is impressive. Say whatever you wish; but she is an expert in her field, and were she a lecturer on the subject; taking her class as an elective or a core course would not be a tough choice.
Members of the bench do err, defence attorneys bark up the wrong trees, and prosecutors often make mistakes. Perfection is a quality possessed by only one person in history, and even his life and works are still shrouded by controversy more than 2,000 years after he was nailed up unto a plus sign, somewhere near where the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting. The problem, nonetheless, is that sometimes when individual knows their field of expertise like the back of their fist, they sometimes hold so fast on to their personal knowledge that they end up doing harm to themselves.
Based on the body of work that has emanated from the Office of The Director Of Public Prosecutions during the period of Llewellyn’s leadership, the evidence is irrefutable that there are far more pros than cons. The majority of homicide cases brought to the office resulted in convictions.
True, there are some strange blotches, such as one case whose logic is as hidden as the truth in a history convention. Though still incredulous, I chalk it up to my lack of knowledge of law when DNA evidence excluded two suspects. However, the decision was made to carry forward the prosecution. Nevertheless, it is the occasional error that makes the front page and the fact that the conduct in the majority of cases was impeccable is not as newsworthy.
Let us be honest here. Even her worst detractors would be hard-pressed to find evidence even using the standard of the practice of law versus that of the academy that she was generally incompetent.
REGRETTABLE
For this reason, therefore, it is deeply regrettable that someone who has put in such a large and impressive résumé should have been and is still being dragged through the mud in a fashion which ultimately, might tarnish her legacy.
My little understanding of law and procedure is that there is almost always only one way of doing something right; but multiple ways of doing wrong. To prevent us from embarking on frolics of our own, there is a set of general guidelines within which all law and policy must be located: the Constitution. The court has ruled that the recent extension of her contract is contrary to this supreme law.
As indicated in an earlier column, on this subject, it is my view that forcing public servants to leave office at 60 with sharp minds, while cuddling octogenarian members in the Houses of Parliament, is simply a waste of good public resources.
Notwithstanding that, the law, is the law; is the law; is the law. Doubtless, more timely planning by the Government was necessary, and action taken from sometime around 2017 or 2018 for the raising of the age of retirement of the critical offices of Auditor General and DPP, both of whom report to Parliament. After all, there was already a move afoot for the shifting of this age from 60 up to 65 on a phased basis for other public officers.
As it stands now, a suitably qualified individual with no apparent dissent from the stakeholders has been appointed to act.
Here now comes another dilemma. In the public sector, unless there is approval for a supernumerary post, an individual cannot be made to act unless there is a clear vacancy or the incumbent is on leave, secondment, or has been assigned to perform duties in another area or position.
The controversy continues. Paula and the public deserve better.