Mark A. Wellington, Contributor 
Governor-General Sir Kenneth Hall
Jamaica has for the past 20 years experienced a socio-political and economic life that has been marred with lawlessness, injustice, poverty, crime and to some degree 'anarchy.' This has been so since social and economic growth has been very low over nearly two decades of economic mis-management.
The 'Rule of Law' is oftentimes violated by regular citizens and government alike. P.J. Patterson once declared (after breaking the law allowing for a day of celebrations for the Reggae Boyz's achievement) that the law is not a shackle, but more a tool of social engineering.
Bruce Golding (now Prime Minister) has always declared (from the inception of the NDM) that a government under his leadership would be new and different and so the people of Jamaica have chosen a Bruce Golding-led Government to provide better governance for the people of Jamaica and to engender in his policies constitutional changes, such that the executive, legislature and judiciary may have separate and specific powers. Mr. Golding has always expressed the view that too much power is vested in the Prime Minister. He had promised the Jamaican people that the power of the Prime Minister under any government he leads shall not be inordinate.
Purpose of the constitution
That said, a constitution is a set of rules which governs an organisation, whether it be a social club, trade union or, in this case, we speak of the nation state. The constitution defines the rights and duties of the organisation members. A constitution therefore defines the manner in which the rules, in fact, operate and dictate what ought to happen in any given situation. Hence, the constitution is prescriptive. Being prescriptive, the constitution facilitates the stability and predictability of behaviour.
Hence, one might well empathise when, in a Congressional Election in the United States, congress becomes dominated by Democrats with a Republican President as the leader! A reasonable man would see clearly that this kind of political arrangement would have some negative effects on the President as regarding some executive and policy issues. Nonetheless, the President is shackled by the constitution of the United States to execute governance with the policymakers so elected or appointed as the constitution lends no flexibility to emotional powers or sensationalism as regarding the rule of law. If my memory serves me right, that was the mindset that Mr. Golding had up to the end of August of this year.
Having got some facts as regarding the constitution, I reviewed the relevant sections as regarding the appointment of a Solicitor General. In reading section (125) of the constitution it would seem clear that the Public Service Commission interviews eligible candidates for the position of Solicitor General in this case, and choose who, in their estimation, would be a suitable candidate, and further consult with the Governor-General who, upon advice from the Prime Minister, makes such an appointment.
PM must comply
GOLDING
However, here comes the glitch, as the Prime Minister must agree in principle with the recommendation in order to give the Governor- General the 'nod' to appoint. The power of the Prime Minister in this regard has, in this case, expanded, as Mr. Golding's objection to the recommendation of Professor Vasciannie for the post of Solicitor General has abbreviated Professor Vasciannie's appointment. We cannot ignore the power accorded to the Prime Minister under section 126 of the constitution, to refer the recommendation back to the Public Service Commission if, in his estimation, the commission needs to reconsider their method(s) of recommendation.
The power of the Prime Minister is not to be taken lightly as, in this case, there are implications that the Prime Minister can, on the bases of many reasons, reject a recommendation from the Public Service Commission. It also seems 'graphically' clear that in this instance the Public Service Commission has no power(s) of appointment. Such appointment rests essentially with the Governor-General on the Prime Minister's advice. It does not seem likely that the Prime Minister will give the 'nod' to the Governor-General on this particular recommendation.
Under section 135, it would seem that the Public Service Commission has some regulatory powers conferred on the commission by the constitution as to the proper operation of the civil service; however, the matter at hand is out of bounds of such regulatory focus.
Hence, we have found ourselves between a rock and a hard place. I have been fortunate over the years to have become acquainted with Professor Vasciannie's wide experience in the legal fraternity - locally and internationally, and without bias can conclude that, based on his qualifications and experience, the commission in good judgement made a recommendation to the Government for Professor Vasciannie to be Jamaica's next Solicitor General.
Who is suitable?
It would be unfortunate and not in Jamaica's best interest if the commission were to be coerced in choosing someone that, in their estimation, is not as suitable as Professor Vasciannie for the post. It would also be wrong for the commission to be removed from its present duties on a matter as straightforward as recommending the best candidate for the position of Solicitor General.
While one has got to concede to the Prime Minister's role in the acceptance of the recommendation from the commission, this action from the Government seems to be skewed toward the flexing of 'political fists' over some reasonable and rational reason(s) for the objection to the appointment of Professor Vasciannie.
The idea being touted about Professor Vasciannie's lack of or limited litigation experience is a load of nonsense. Professor Vasciannie's wide-ranging experience, combined with the fact that he would be working with a team of specialists, makes such a claim irrelevant.
Mr. Golding came to power and inherited the Public Service Commission that is now in place. Are these not qualified individuals to conduct interviews of this nature and make appropriate recommendations? Since this recommendation is rebuffed by the Prime Minister, then how many more such recommendations and appointments might he have refused were he Prime Minister before September 2007?
Again, the constitution does not afford the commission the power to appoint individuals to public office; it has the power of recommendation. However, the constitution would then seem to imply that the recommendation of such a commission should be weighted heavily, since it provides for it to be there as an institution in and of itself.
As a Jamaican, I stand in principle with others who would again recommend to the Prime Minister that the Public Service Commission is there to carry out an extremely important constitutional function. We do not wish to have a commission that functions under the full dictates of any prime minister. If the commission's recommendation is going to be rebuffed in this kind of way, then the public is left to conclude that the intellectual depravity Mr. Golding spoke of as existing in the Opposition might very well be replicated here in the Public Service Commission. Is this politicking at work?
