A.J. Nicholson, Contributor

Nicholson (left) and Harriott (right)

THE MACMILLAN Task Force on Crime has done Jamaica a disservice, for which it should apologise. And we expect more from Anthony Harriott in his response to my recent challenge to all its members.

In its report, presented to the Leader of the Opposition, the task force asserts that: "[T]here is general consensus that Jamaica suffers from endemic corruption and that this has been spreading throughout the system ­ it is institutionalised in the police force and is evident in the Department of Corrections, and even in the judiciary."

With respect to our judiciary, what, precisely, does this mean? On close reading it suggests at the very least that there is general consensus that endemic corruption is spreading throughout the system and is evident in the judiciary. I reject this assertion entirely. In the first place, there is absolutely no consensus, or even minimal agreement, that there is "endemic corruption" in the judiciary. And, secondly, there is absolutely no consensus, or even minimal agreement, that this endemic corruption is evident in the judiciary.

Moreover, please note that I have paid the MacMillan Task Force the courtesy of giving its statement close attention. In a long report, when the task force throws mud, it is quite possible that some of the mud will stick unfairly: When the headlines are written, and when the story is summarised for the local and foreign media, will it not simply be suggested that the task force has affirmed that the Jamaican judiciary is corrupt?

CARELESSLY IRRESPONSIBLE

The report of the task force is carelessly irresponsible. One wonders, for instance, why the task force has sought to hide behind the idea of "general consensus?" What did the task force do to ascertain this general consensus? How did they go about determining that there is endemic corruption? And, most importantly, what evidence did the members of the task force rely on in raising the implication that corruption is evident "even in the judiciary?"

There are no clear answers to these questions in the report of the task force, and so, I have publicly taken them to task about their reckless and recklessly incorrect statement on the judiciary. I have, in particular, called upon them to provide the evidence to support their claim, as this is what a responsible team should be required to do.

Apparently in response, Anthony Harriott, a member of the task force, has presented a two-part article on "Corruption in the Courts" in the editions of The Sunday Gleaner, dated June 11 and 18, 2006, respectively. I have read the two-part article with considerable dismay, for, once again, no evidence is presented as to corruption in the judiciary; indeed, not even plausible hearsay appears in Harriott's presentation.

HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY

More specifically, Harriott's argument on this point ­ when pulled from a substantial overgrowth of side issues ­ amounts to this:

Carl Stone wrote in 1986 that the criminal justice system renders "corrupt judgements." Did Stone provide any evidence?

The USAID reported in 1991 that 70 per cent of men and 62 per cent of women in a sample felt that "on the whole" judges were not "free of corruption." Was any evidence provided to ground the basis of that "feeling?"

The Caribbean Group for Co-operation in Economic Development in 2000 noted that "people fear the courts" because if one part of a system is corrupt the other parts (including the courts) will become contaminated. Does this lead Harriott and his colleagues ineluctably to their assertion concerning the judiciary?

Minister K.D. Knight, in 2001, warned the society that "the drug dealers have used their enormous wealth to reach the judiciary." Could this not have been a reference to the same (one) instance which the task force chairman noted in a radio interview?

Harriott's approach is unconvincing, to say the least. Hearsay is piled upon hearsay to state unequivocally that there is "general consensus" that corruption is evident in the Jamaican judiciary today. No set of instances is cited by Harriott to support his assertions; no set of suggestions of judges being found in positions that could reasonably be described as corruption is cited by Harriott; not one set of circumstances that could fairly support the implication that our judges are corrupt, or that there is general consensus to this effect. He thinks so, so it is so!

Furthermore, the claims mentioned by Harriott are not only hearsay, they actually make divergent points. Stone and Knight are talking about corruption pertaining to judgements, while the USAID and the other group are addressing the perception of corruption among judges. So, two weeks after my call for evidence, the most Harriott can offer are two statements, each about two different things.

THROWAWAY LINE

Now, consider the statements more carefully: Stone's is no more than a throwaway line supported by not one jot or tittle of evidence. Minister Knight's is essentially a short, concise warning, again offering no evidence. The USAID study tells us that 15 years ago, some people surveyed (Harriott does not tell us how many) felt that judges were "not free of corruption," the kind of rough overgeneralisation that one hears in rum bars, shops and pubs all over the world, but hardly material for a serious analysis of the Jamaican justice system. And, as for the relevant part of the 2000 study, well, that does not even purport to be statistical: it is merely an unsubstantiated non sequitur.

I expect more from the task force, just as I expect more from Harriott. What if I were to say there is general consensus that the task force report is deeply biased? Surely, the members of the task force would know that four passing references in different places to different things over a period of 20 years would be insufficient to support such an assertion.

The task force should apologise to the members of the judiciary and to Jamaica for this slur. Their report is not likely to gain the respect, which it probably otherwise deserves, unless its members admit that they have incorrectly tarnished the good name of our judiciary.

And the members of the task force should be assured that we do not seek to ascribe motive to them. Our real aim is to ensure that, if there is even a hint that any member of our judiciary, perhaps more than any other public figure, is not being true to his or her oath, the public is entitled to be made aware. Nothing less will suffice and, certainly, no unsubstantiated suggestion to that effect can be left unchallenged.

A.J. Nicholson is Attorney-General and Minister of Justice.