Devon Dick

A couple months ago, I said to a lawyer that I was very pleased with Patrick Foster, then deputy solicitor general of Jamaica, based on a magnanimous and courageous letter he wrote to The Gleaner in which he refuted what a contributor had claimed was Professor Stephen Vasciannie's tardy and ill-formed response concerning the Trafigura affair. Foster outlined the steps taken, the time it took and the nature of Vasciannie's advice. Paradoxically, the counsel which Vasciannie suggested as being needed in order to bring the Dutch authorities was the exact procedure used by the Golding administration.

The reason I said it was magnanimous was due to the fact that Vasciannie was Foster's competitor for the job of solicitor general, yet he was highlighting and defending his competitor's competence and integrity.

It was a courageous letter because it was not politically correct to defend Vasciannie and worse to touch the Trafigura affair. And Jamaicans are not known to "speak truth to power". So subsequently, I was gushing with praise for Foster to another lawyer who informed me that the "powers that be" were not pleased with Foster's letters. Therefore, it came as no surprise when I read The Gleaner caption 'Acting solicitor general resigns' (March 12). What was disappointing with that feature was there was no indication that any reporter tried to contact Foster about the reason he resigned. There was no mention of what was his contribution while he was deputy solicitor general. No interview with a member of the Solicitor General's Department about what type of person he was and what were his accomplishments. A public servant in high office would have faded without any highlights about his career.

I wondered if the "powers that be" had a send-off for him. Class is to rise above petty peeves and acknowledge even an opponent's strengths. We need to praise persons more. I do not even recall anything about the contribution of Kent Pantry as DPP. Sometimes, people come to top jobs in this country without any statement about who they are and what they have done. It was only Ken Chaplin, an Observer columnist, who made me aware of some of the significant judgements made by Chief Justice McCalla. Therefore, it is not surprising that nothing was said about Patrick Foster.

My estimation of Patrick Foster was elevated even further when I heard that he did not reapply for the position of solicitor general. He knew that Vasciannie was now out of the 'runnings' with a new PSC in place, which could not recommend Vasciannie to the position. He was selfless and principled. Others might say he was being pragmatic since it was rumoured that the Government wanted Douglas Leys. However, I tend to perceive Foster not applying as principle-based.

Misbehaviour

It is a principle, which is lacking in the new PSC members. A couple months ago, there was an Observer editorial which stated that Golding would not find persons willing to serve on the PSC because of the way he handled the former PSC members. I laughed when I read that because there are always persons who want positions and status. Since the new PSC members did not disassociate itself from the actions of the prime minister, it means they feel that Vasciannie is not fit and proper to be solicitor general and that the former members misbehaved. All I can say to the new PSC is that same knife that stick sheep stick goat.

Patrick Foster should be praised as a principled, magnanimous and courageous Jamaican. He deserves an OJ.