- FileA Jamaica Defence Force soldier takes cover under a truck during the upheaval in West Kingston in early July. The incidents are the subject of a Commission of Enquiry, being chaired by Justice Julius Isaac.
A.J. Nicholson, Contributor
NOT long ago, the House of Lords, the highest court in the United Kingdom, had to consider an issue that fell to be determined by them, that is, whether the former President of Chile, General Agusto Pinochet, should be extradited to Spain to answer several accusations that had been levelled against him.
Amnesty International had an interest in the matter, to the extent that the organisation was represented at the hearing before their Lordships.
One member of the panel of judges in the House of Lords was closely connected with Amnesty International in that he was part of the leadership of their fund-raising arm.
That judge did not advise his brethren of that fact; neither did the lawyers representing Amnesty International make any such revelation to their other colleagues at the Bar.
The conclusion arrived at by that panel had to be reviewed and was overturned by another panel when it was subsequently discovered that a judge with an interest to serve had been a member of the previous panel.
Judges, like functionaries in other arenas, make mistakes. Such mistakes are corrected by other judges, usually at a higher level.
When judicial mistakes are made in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, members of the society do not relentlessly castigate the judge and call him all manner of names. Sadly, there are certain opinion makers in our country who do not take that route.
UNKIND TO EACH OTHER
In Jamaica, we are at war with ourselves, on the streets, in the media, at the workplace and within the household. We treat each other with disrespect and with intolerance.
In short, we are unkind to each other, unkind in the extreme. And some of us have chosen to behave in like manner towards a stranger within our gates, Justice Julius Isaac, the chairman of the Commission of Enquiry into what transpired in western Kingston in early July of this year.
After the events of July, there were some loud voices who made an immediate call for a Commission of Enquiry to be established.
Those same voices insisted that that Commission should be chaired by a foreigner. Those same voices started to belly-ache as soon as the Prime Minister said that a Commission of Enquiry would, in fact, be established.
Those same voices, as is their habit, would have belly-ached if the Prime Minister had said no to their insistence.
They belly-ached about the procedure - the usual procedure - that was employed by the Prime Minister in the establishment of the Commission. They belly-ached about the Terms of Reference.
They belly-ached about the choice of at least one of the Commissioners. The same voices have continued to belly-ache to this day.
Justice Isaac has been told by at least one prominent opinion writer, coming out of those same voices, to pack his bags and leave our shores.
That is quite un-Jamaican. That is not our custom, our cultural attitude, to the treatment of strangers - invitees - in our midst. Justice Isaac did not impose himself upon us. He was invited here, based on suggestions coming from the voices.
We not only invited him here, we have fed him, accommodated him and have agreed to pay for his upkeep. The voices have turned around and "kicked him in the pants" in circumstances where he has not abused our hospitality.
SAME ABUSE
And yet, who can be surprised, since the abuse meted to him is much the same kind of deluge of abuse that moves from those same voices towards their fellow Jamaicans on a daily basis?
An entire article written by one of the voices was dedicated, in a recent edition of The Sunday Gleaner, to what the panel of the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Canadian Council found in a complaint that had been made against Justice Isaac, in 1996, when he was Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada.
OWN AGENDA
Our researches show that, even though there was quite an editorial stir in Canada at the time concerning the allegations of impropriety made against Justice Isaac, the Chairman of the Panel of the Judicial Conduct Committee concluded as follows:
"In conclusion, the Panel has considered the complaint against you as well as the results of further inquiries conducted on the Panel's behalf by Professor Ed Ratushny, Q.C of the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, and has decided that no formal investigation pursuant to subsection 63(2) of the Judges Act is warranted. While the Panel is of the view that the wording of your letter to Mr. Thompson was unfortunate and that you should have taken the initiative to ensure that counsel for the Respondent were informed of the discussions which had taken place, your conduct clearly does not warrant even the consideration of your removal from the office of judge".
Upon his retirement, subsequently, as Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, Justice Isaac was asked to sit as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of that country. He continues to hold that position.
The opinion writer from one of the voices has wondered, in her column, how it has come to pass that Justice Isaac has held such lofty judicial office in Canada. That amounts to an insult to the people and government of Canada, something that is also entirely un-Jamaican.
Regrettably, the voices will continue on that same route, for their real agenda is far more sinister. The majority of Jamaicans have long discovered that agenda.
