Seaga’s wise comments

Within the past seven days things have gone from bad to worse in the “Dudus Coke” matter in Jamaica, and close to a hundred lives have been lost in what is turning out to be a nightmarish imbroglio for the ruling Jamaica Labour Party, and Prime Minister Bruce Golding in particular, and the island of Jamaica in general.A few days ago, former Prime Minister Edward Seaga delivered what has been described as a “damning assessment” on the issue by declaring that in his opinion Golding was showing “day by dayt hat he cannot cope”.Mr Seaga also declared, adamantly, that Mr Golding “ought not to have interfered with the service of the warrant that led to Coke’s rejection of it and that it has led to the need to go and get Coke [which] then led to the calling of the state of emergency and all of the atrocities that have taken place.”  Clearly, the former prime minister is placing the source of the dire consequential developments at the door of Mr Golding’s interference with the service of the warrant. Strikingly, he dismisses Mr Golding’s argument that the evidence on the “Dudus” Cokecase was “illegally obtained evidence” by declaring bluntly: “Let the courts say that!”There will be enough time for detailed analysis by the political theorists and the constitutional experts as they dissect the “Dudus” affair, but taking Mr Seaga’s comment about interference as a starting point, we recognise that it speaks to underlying constitutional fundamental points which may have been ignored or overlooked by Mr Golding at his peril.The separation of the great umbrella powers of state into the judicial, the legislative and the executive power, and the allocation of those powers into different hands, is designed to protect us as citizens because history has shown that freedom is in danger, especially when politicians interfere with the judicial process. Prime Minister Mr Golding should have avoided any comment on the “legality” of the evidence presented by the Americans and should have allowed that issue to be determined by the courts exercising the judicial power, as will now be done. Nor should he have “interfered” with the service of the warrant. Mr Seaga’s criticisms are sound. Some may argue about Mr Golding’s freedom of speech, but even with the best of intentions, any such comment and interference by a prime minister inevitably raises the nation’s eyebrows as well as questions of his overstepping the dividing line between the executive power of the politicians and the judicial power of the courts. It may also have sent the wrong message even if no message was intended, and it shows the value of observing certain of the conventions associated with the constitution, for Mr Golding’s statement broke the “unwritten” rule that politicians should not comment on mattersbefore the court.What is more, Mr Seaga’s comments also put into very sharp focus the“no confidence motion” filed by the opposition, for if that motionis to succeed, it must have the support of some members of parliament of the governing Jamaican Labour Party. Already we know that Golding’s offer two weeks ago to resign as leader was rejected by his JLP colleagues, but the duty to parliament is by convention an entirely different matter, and cabinet colleagues and all backbenchers on both sides of the political divide must, in the light of Mr Golding’s statements to parliament on this affair, seriously consider their first duty to parliament and to the people of Jamaica when they vote on the motion.The wisdom of Mr Seaga’s views should not be lost on the JLP parliamentarians. They should fall on fertile ground and a vote in favour of the motion should rank as a first step in the constitutional procedures necessary to rebuilding public confidence in thepolitical process.