PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson is a cautious man. He does not lead from the front. That 'virtual' leadership style has, for the most part, been criticised as demonstrating weakness and a lack of conviction. Mr. Patterson usually stays clear of public controversies until the dust settles.
He departed from that modus operandi last Tuesday while delivering his 13th Budget presentation as Prime Minister. He entered the controversy sparked by the thoughtless comments of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Kent Pantry, over the media's role in covering what Mr. Patterson dubbed the 'universal cry for justice in the country.'
The increasingly hapless Mr. Pantry had, four days earlier, warned the media and human rights groups that he would be monitoring them closely with a view to prosecuting for discussing cases before the courts. The DPP also declared that he would be setting traps for those members of his office whom he believes are leaking information to the media.
Mr. Pantry went on to argue that media practitioners, human rights activists, and the citizens of this country should desist from discussing legal issues, as they are not competent to do so. Also, in an amazing betrayal of pettiness and mean-spiritedness, the DPP took issue with a cartoon depicting the slow pace at which his office disposes of files sent to it by the police.
His threats and warnings have drawn sharp responses from the media and sections of the wider society. He has been told in no uncertain manner, that his office has been performing poorly, and that his warnings and threats will be seen for what they are an attempt to muzzle and intimidate.
Uncharacteristically, Prime Minister Patterson signalled that his Government was not pleased with the performance of the Office of the DPP. He joined those who have called for a review of the powers conferred on the DPP in Section 94 of the constitution; powers that Mr. Pantry reeled off in his speech last Thursday night in Spanish Town, giving him no obligation to report to any authority or power in the country. The Prime Minister told the country that until those constitutional requirements, which govern the DPP, have been revisited, he is in support of the view that Mr. Pantry should be required to submit reports on a timely basis to Parliament.
The Prime Minister is right. As he said in Parliament Tuesday afternoon, "In this age in which access to information is a key component of transparency, accountability and development, there is the question whether those constitutional arrangements should not be revisited."
By any reasonable standard of interpretation, the verdict from the Prime Minister is clear the Office of the DPP has been failing in its duties and responsibilities to the criminal justice system. We strongly urge Mr. Pantry to shed the pettiness and embrace the thrust toward transparency and accountability. He must work hard to rebuild the trust and credibility that the Office of the DPP has lost under his watch.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
