By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterIN AN unprecedented move, a lawyer in the Attorney-General's Department is suing members of the Public Service Commission over the vacant post of Deputy Solicitor-General from which he was reverted after acting in it for more than a year.
Lackson Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney-General, filed a summons in the Supreme Court last week accusing the defendants of acting unlawfully and in breach of the Public Service Regulations and the Constitution.
He is contending that before he was reverted, a determination should have been made as to his suitability for the post.
Mr. Robinson who has been working in the Attorney-General's Department since March 1989, a few months after he graduated from the Norman Manley Law School, UWI, Mona, is contending that on November 15, 2000, Dr. Kenneth Rattray, Q.C., the then Solicitor-General, recommended his appointment to act as Deputy Solicitor General in place of Patrick Robinson. The appointment was approved by the Public Service Commission with effect from October 1, 2000. Mr. Robinson who was seconded to the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal from November 16, 1998 went on pre-retirement leave on January 29, 2001 and retired in November that year.
Mr. Robinson states in his affidavit that Dr. Rattray demitted office in December 2000 and Mr. Michael Hylton, Q.C. was appointed Solicitor General January 2, 2001. He states that on October 17 the Solicitor General told him that it was his intention to allow Hugh Salmon, Senior Assistant Attorney-General, who was junior to him (Robinson) to act as Deputy Solicitor General for six months after which he would decide who should be appointed to the post. "I told the Solicitor-General, inter alia, that in my opinion he could not properly adopt that course." Mr. Hylton, he said, responded that he did not recommend his appointment to act he had "inherited" him.
Mr. Robinson states further that Mr. Hylton told him that it was therefore only fair that he (Hylton) should be allowed to see someone else acting in the post before he determined who should be appointed.
He states that apart from the conversation with Mr. Hylton he was not otherwise informed by the Commission or by anyone else that he was reverted to his substantive post of Senior Assistant Attorney General with effect form December 1, 2001.
In the originating summons filed by the law firm Llivingston, Alexander and Levy, Mr. Robinson is asking the court to make a determination as to whether the Solicitor General has the power to rotate officers in the Attorney-General's Department, be they senior or junior, to perform functions of a higher office before making a recommendation to the Chief Personnel Officer under section 18 of the Public Service Regulations 1961. He is asking the court to decide whether it is the duty of the Solicitor General under the Public Service Regulations to recommend the most senior officer in the department to the rank of Deputy Solicitor-General.
Also, the court is being asked to say whether the action of the Public Service Commission in reverting him with the consequent reduction in salary and other benefits amounts to a deprivation of property without lawful authority within the meaning of section 18 of the Constitution. The court will be asked to determine if it is lawful to revert Mr. Robinson other than on the grounds prescribed in the Public Service Regulations of 1961.
Mr. Robinson is seeking a declaration that he continues to occupy the post of acting Deputy Solicitor General until a proper determination of the suitability of his appointment.
The members of the Public Service Commission are: Daisy Coke, chairman, Michael Fennell, Edwin Jones, Pauline Findlay and George Phillip.
Also named as defendant is the Attorney-General.
Mr. Hylton told The Gleaner he was aware that the suit has been filed.
The lawsuit has serious implications for the Civil Service and its stability.
