( L - R ) REX NETTLEFORD, HIBBERT AND GOMES
THE NEW YEAR started out with some of the most insightful and reassuring commentaries in the print media. Long may this last into 2006 and way beyond. For any country with plans to survive the Third Millennium can do with such passion for truth, much hope despite cause for despair, and full understanding of the need for self-confidence and plenty common sense which is indeed not so common. Freedom of expression on which the press has no monopoly, and the inescapable challenge of eternal vigilance to safeguard one's freedom, are among the surest guarantees for civilised living as much among compatriots as between governor and governed, between the State and its citizenry.
The Gleaner, to begin with, is to be congratulated for remaining the forum it can be when it wants to be - i.e., making all ideas contend. I refer to the coverage it gave the Kraal trials which ended with the acquittal of a number of policemen led by the charismatic, if somewhat voluble, Senior Superintendent Reneto Adams, on charges of murder.
CONTROVERSY
The controversy over the verdict has raged long and hard, giving rise to expressions of doubt about the reliability of the Jamaican justice system including the jury system which many have seen, and still see, as trial by one's peers which is so central to the culture of fairness in the judicial process.
The Kraal trial-jury took five hours to decide rather than a mere 10 minutes, which some felt could have been the result of the final instructions by Chief Justice Wolfe, the trial judge. This, some see, as evidence of the good sense betrayed by the jury in this case. At least one prominent human rights advocate, Mrs. Yvonne Sobers, gave full marks on this score. The more highly profiled justice advocate, Dr. Carolyn Gomes, was not so sure. But in fairness to Dr. Gomes, her experience in that courtroom where the Chief Justice felt he had cause to threaten her with arrest for contempt if she did not control her non-verbal indulgences during his summing-up, is bound to colour her feelings on the matter for a long time.
It was, therefore, a joy and relief to read that Sunday Gleaner article written by Sybil Hibbert, the veteran, now retired, Gleaner court reporter. Her own experience, expertise and good sense reminded readers that the presiding judge must have full control over his court, maintaining law and order in it and commanding the full respect from spectators who are expected to remain still and quiet during proceedings. In a place like Jamaica, body-language can be sometimes far more eloquent than the spoken or written word.
MISSED THE POINT
An earlier Gleaner editorial chastising the Chief Justice for overreacting to Dr. Gomes may well have missed the point. Others who felt that the Chief Justice may well have afforded Dr. Gomes more importance than she deserved may well have failed to put the whole thing into context. For Dr. Gomes may well be more than herself.
Could she be a phenomenon depicting a certain feeling among some Jamaicans who feel that they have entitlement exclusively to moral authority and want to 'take Jamaica back' from the insolently assertive masses in order to lead it to where one is not always sure. Certainly it will not be to pre-Independence days when the likes of Lensley Wolfe might not have been on the Bench. But whoever was, would certainly be saved the 'Gomesque' defiance of courtroom etiquette while fighting for justice. The feisty Justice Wolfe would certainly understand the context. He has lived long enough to grasp the significance of all this. Admittedly, he may have missed the ancestral pedigree of Dr. Gomes who, as a journalist reminded his internes in justifying her courtroom bravado, that she is a descendant, as is Deacon Ronnie Thwaites, of George William Gordon who paid the supreme sacrifice at Morant Bay in 1865 for seeking justice for the poor and downtrodden. Could it be in the genes?
Which brings me around to Ian Boyne's very good article in the In Focus section of the Sunday Gleaner headed 'What's Right With Jamaica', on January 1. It was an even-handed assessment of reality, starting with the welcome reminder to those of his colleagues who preach doom and gloom and are unrelenting critics of post-Independence governance in Jamaica, that they would not stand a chance of professional survival in a place like Singapore which some of them admire so much for its economic prosperity compared to Jamaica's decline. One does not cross Lee Kwan Hew with impunity!
NO GULAG
Further, there is no gulag awaiting any Jamaican journalist who voices his/her disapproval of the country's chief executive officer. Neither Hitlerian nor Stalinist indulgences are yet a part of Jamaican governance, however flawed it may be. The eternal vigilance of both our journalists and the entire citizenry they are pledged to protect must therefore be seen as part of the fact of tenancy. Both what is right and what is wrong must be part of the continuing evaluation of both self and society.
The coarsening of sensibility was nicely enough covered in an article on 'bhutooism' and many of our international economic woes are brilliantly dealt with by master journalist John Maxwell in the Sunday Observer. After reading all this, I, for one, was not unhappy being a tenant in contemporary Jamaica despite the murderous character of this noisy cantankerous isle of ours.
But back to where I started - the justice system. Many years ago I locked horns with a journalist who felt he could denigrate the probity of the then Chief Justice. My own position was that though no one was above the law or above criticism, one needs to exercise care when dealing with the judiciary by bringing to our critique of that segment of our democratic life all the objectivity and fair comment we can muster. If justice is to be with us forever, so must truth! It was in part my admiration for the entire legal profession throughout the Anglophone Caribbean, where professional probity among legally trained operatives (on whatever side of the political or judicial divide) has marked us off from many other developing countries.
DEBATE CONTINUES
Not all in the Jamaican legal profession would agree, judging from comments heard coming from members of the bar on the Kraal trial, as well as on the matter of the replacement of the Privy Council by the Caribbean Court of Justice. On this last matter, the debate is nowhere yet ended since in protecting the basic rights of Jamaican citizens, some advocates are believed to be of the view that their own cannot be trusted to dispense justice to West Indians now in Independence and that justice may be better administered by former masters than by compatriots.
Even if one would not wish to believe that this view is held by highly educated West Indians four decades into Independence, one can hardly ignore some recent manifestations of British justice which, as Sybil Hibbert reminds her readers, are not themselves above suspicion as in the killing of an innocent Brazilian by the London police in the name of anti-terrorism. To this must be added the failure to have anyone caught or convicted for the racial murder of British-Jamaican Steve Lawrence some years ago. 'Justice, truth be ours forever', indeed!
