We are glad that a report ordered by Prime Minister Bruce Golding has concluded what was obvious from the start: That Michael Bennett, the caretaker of Independence Park in St. Elizabeth, was wrongfully dismissed.

What was inadequate about the statement issued by Jamaica House on Monday was that it did not declare the immediate reinstatement of Mr. Bennett, or say that he would be compensated for his loss of income and other injuries suffered.

Yet, we see in this case an emerging positive for Mr. Golding and his administration if, as we hope, it represents a new standard in ensuring due process, respect for natural justice, the constitution and the rule of law when decisions are made to separate people from their jobs or positions of constitutional responsibility.

In other words, the Michael Bennett case will, hopefully, inspire a new metaphor for the administration, given its clumsy objection to the installation of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as Solicitor General and the subsequent firing of the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Bennett, it is recalled, lost his job when the establishment committee of the St. Elizabeth Parish Council voted, strictly along party lines, to dismiss him on the grounds that he deliberately failed to facilitate Mr. Golding, who was to land by helicopter in the park on his way to a function.

Apparently, Mr. Bennett is a supporter of the Opposition People's National Party and it was assumed that he had taken a deliberate action to embarrass the Prime Minister.

What Mr. Bennett argued at the time, which has since been proven, was that he simply had not been told of Mr. Golding's planned arrival and the expected use of the park.

The action of the St. Elizabeth Parish Council, however, revealed something important: how irrationality often gains ascendancy when people feel themselves flush with power. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), having controlled the parish council, had recently won the national government after nearly two decades in Opposition. It was time to flex muscles.

It seemed not to matter to the JLP councillors that their action represented a trampling on the labour laws, or that they had done no adequate investigation. Or, as the Jamaica House statement puts it, "the council made its decision on the basis of inadequate information."

This is an important acknowledgement on the part of the administration, as significantly of the Prime Minister, who appears to have taken an active interest in the case. But for the vigilance of the press, this injustice against a 'lowly caretaker' might have gone unnoticed. Institutional arrogance may have solidified.

That is the crux of this case; none of us should feel ourselves too powerful so as to be insulated from injustice driven by the arrogance of power, of which Mr. Golding complained in the previous administration. This victory for Mr. Bennett, therefore, is a victory for all Jamaicans.

We are glad that the Prime Minister intervened. But we hope that people, as a matter of course, would follow due process rather than undermine natural justice. Mr. Golding has pointed to a course which, hopefully, he will now always follow.