THE EDITOR, Sir:
I REFER to your article dated Wednesday, December 12, 2001 headed "PNP lawyer admits 'poaching'." This allegation is made in relation to a business card which my learned friend Usim had in an open folder as he attended at the Commission of Enquiry.
I must confess to some surprise at this righteous indignation professed by Mr. Usim. Here was a situation where a police officer in the witness box was denying that Usim was his lawyer, as he sought to retain protection of the Police Counsel as well, or instead.
Surely it was the duty of Mr. Usim to disclose to the Court, not the general statement that he was instructed to appear which conveyed nothing specific, but to tell the Court who gave him instructions to appear for the said officer. In these circumstances it was his duty to produce the business card of Sgt. Black in relation to Premium Finance Ltd., which the policeman had given him and so to clear the air as to the source of his instructions, and the validity of his claim to appear for the hapless police officer.
Having done neither of the above, I think it was entirely appropriate of Mr. Walter Scott to bring the matter out by cross-examination and to do so by reference not only to his own prior information, but the fact that Mr. Usim had with him in the tribunal documentation which would put the relationship between the policeman, himself and Mr. Seaga in context: that is, the context of a Commission of Enquiry, supposedly repudiated by Mr. Seaga, but which he seeks to manipulate from the outside without taking his lawful part in the proceedings as a constitutional officer should, by giving evidence openly and fearlessly.
As usual with us in Jamaica, the real issue is side-tracked and an unfounded allegation of 'poaching' is made by the news reporter.
Mr. Scott, as the facts make clear, referred to Mr. Usim's card as he was entitled to do in the circumstances but at no time took possession of it.
I am, etc.,
IAN RAMSAY, Q.C.
Attorney-at-Law
53 Church Street,
Kingston
