I take issue with the statements of Reginald Dumas with regard to the Chief State Solicitor's (CSS) handling of the now infamous letter. The former head of the Public Service must first grasp that the true intent and purport of the letter was to portray it as coming from the pen of the CSS. Who believes it was a mistake? Was it not a deliberate attempt to drag the CSS into the Government's conflict with respected environmentalist Dr Wayne Kublalsingh?
That letter was obnoxious, insensitive, threatening and clearly political. If in fact the CSS did pen that letter, or signed it, then one could question his suitability to hold that position. The suggestion that the CSS should have gone quietly to the AG to register his objection is naive at best, given the intent of the letter. The AG would have done nothing! The result being that 1.3 million people would sill be believing that the objectionable letter was written by the CSS himself.
When one considers the mass public attention the matter has received, and the language used in the now infamous letter, the CSS had no choice but to go public. Mr Dumas mentioned about "clearing" his name. Here again it seems Mr Dumas did not fully appreciate the situation.
Christophe Grant talked to the radio station not in his personal capacity, but in the capacity of the CSS. He was obliged to defend the office of the CSS, which was being led into disrepute. Before this matter was exposed, how many knew that the person holding the office of CSS was named Christophe Grant?
The CSS is seen as a fresh green sprout from the parched land that Public Service has become. The office of the CSS has given the people hope that the office of the Auditor General, the Solicitor General, and the entire Public Service can still be resuscitated, unlike the Police Service and UWI.
Hilton Charles,
via e-mail