Earl Witter, the newly-installed Public Defender, the second in the post, has pledged to carry out his duties fearlessly, on behalf of all Jamaica.

No one who knows Mr. Witter, either personally or by reputation, would question his intent. His is a profound integrity, constrained neither by friendship, ideology or partisan politics. Indeed, the broad cross section of professionals who attended his oath-taking ceremony was testimony to the esteem in which Mr. Witter is held.

The issue still to be resolved, though, is precisely what is expected of Mr. Witter in the job and whether there is the institutional capacity for him to deliver.

Broadly, it is the job of the Public Defender to identify and act in defence of citizens whose rights, constitutional or otherwise, have been impinged upon by the state. It seems, on the face of it, that the Office of the Public Defender would have special relevance for the society's most vulnerable; those who are less likely to be able to afford a legal challenge to state abuses.

Yet, it is clear from the speeches last Wednesday, and more, that this office has yet to define itself clearly. Indeed, the first holder of the office, the recently-retired Howard Hamilton, was often criticised by the former Opposition Leader Edward Seaga of taking up social welfare issues rather than the hard human rights issues. Mr. Hamilton's defence would be, we suspect, that both issues are indistinguishable.

However, at last week's ceremony, Mr. Hamilton did propose that the law be changed to allow the office holder to directly appear in court on behalf of aggrieved persons, which would more firmly plant his remit as defender of the citizens' rights.

Bruce Golding, the current Leader of the Opposition, feels that the Public Defender should be able to investigate constitutional breaches by the security forces against civilians and for the office to submit regular reports to Parliament of such breaches by other state agencies.

The range of suggestions which has emerged suggests to us that Parliament should, as a matter of urgency, establish a joint committee of the legislature to hold public hearings on this important issue. This committee should be given a specific timetable to complete its work and for the amendments to the current law to be drafted, reviewed and debated by Parliament. The matter is important.

In the meantime, Mr. Witter has an opportunity to begin to shape the office and stamp his own authority on the job. For no matter what a law says, it is invariably the personality involved who creates the tone of that office.

The tone that we would wish is one that is respectful and measured in utterances but firm and resolute in the defence of people's rights. These are not irreconcilable objectives.

Indeed, they fit precisely the personality of Earl Witter, a distinguished member of the Bar for three decades. We wish him well.