By Dennie Quill, ContributorI SUPPORT the attempts to have the all-powerful Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) report to someone. The nation's Parliament seems like a good place to start. The DPP's office makes crucial decisions regarding the administration of justice that are beyond the power of any group or body including the media to monitor effectively on an ongoing basis. So in that context, the mild invitation by the Prime Minister for the DPP to make timely reports stands at the heart of public accountability for which so many of the people are clamouring.
TREADING LIGHTLY
But we have to tread lightly in this area because the Constitution guarantees the independence and autonomy of the DPP. The Chief Justice, Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal all fall within that ambit and with good reason. The idea is that neither the DPP nor the judges should come under the influence of the executive branch as they should be able to prosecute and try any member of the Government without fear.
REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTION
So before we start dancing all over the carpet at these recent happenings, we should instead be urging our legislators to take a hard look at the Constitution and institute the necessary changes to ensure that the right persons are placed in these powerful life-time positions.
Could it be time for us to hold confirmation hearings? Here is how it would work. Public officers including the DPP, the Chief Justice, judges of the Supreme and Appeal Courts together with the Solicitor-General, the Auditor-General, the Accountant-General, the Commissioner of Police, Chief of Staff of the Jamaica Defence Force, the Public Defender and head of Prison Services and Governor of the Bank of Jamaica would be subject to public hearings as part of their selection process. I might add to the list appointees to major boards and commissions.
I believe such hearings would help to strengthen democratic accountability in very critical areas of governance. Nominees to these important positions would be invited to appear before a special committee of Parliament to state their vision and outline how they intend to carry out their jobs. What they think and how they think will certainly have some bearing on their ability to discharge their obligations. The nominee's record would be carefully scrutinised as past performance is a pretty good indication of how they will fare in their new position. Members of the public would know something about, say, the new Solicitor General and be able to assess his worth and ability to do the job.
INFO ON NOMINEES
There should be financial information and biographical data on all these nominees. It should not be left up to magazine editors to decide if and when to profile these individuals and whether to tell us about their views on political, social or legal issues. Nominees would be required to answer questions on certain hot-button issues relevant to their portfolio. Special interest groups could seek permission to attend the hearings and make submissions or ask questions. In the name of good order such persons would be required to submit a summary of their testimony in keeping with the Committee's guidelines. The hearings need not be laborious. At the end of the hearing, the committee would evaluate the performance of each nominee before putting it to a floor vote. The people could now hold the House of Representatives accountable for the good or bad that results from such confirmations.
We have seen how Confirmation Hearings can be acrimonious and stir strong partisan feelings. The Clarence Thomas nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court springs to mind and the bitter battle which ensued with Anita Hill who accused him of sexual harassment. In other cases we have seen good candidates wilt under the strain of tough questioning and have thrown in the towel, or there have been cases where candidates with excellent resumes were not confirmed in their positions.
The process need not be as contentious.Good people can make mistakes in life and the hearings should not be designed to pass judgement on anyone who committed minor transgressions such as smoking a spliff at a party. The aim is to find persons who have a vision of how to do the job and who are committed to taking on the task with the fervour and enthusiasm required. The persons should be of good character and integrity and be able to face detractors with confidence.
We are accustomed to bickering in our Parliament but somehow I feel it is not beyond us to achieve accord in the national interest. I understand that interviews are currently taking place to determine who gets the job as President of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Maybe CARICOM leaders could decide to hold public hearings into these important positions. Such a move would be highly appreciated by the people of region.
Finally, I must acknowledge that Opposition Senator Bruce Golding has been constantly calling for this Constitutional Review. So far his calls have fallen on deaf ears maybe it is time to heed his entreaty.
Dennie Quill is a veteran journalist who may be reached at denniequill@hotmail.com.
