As the guardians of democracy, we were extremely pleased to hear it said directly from the mouth of Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, that he remains committed to the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Such mouthings in support of an office critical to the survival of our jurisprudence, also augur well for our own independence as members of this country’s Fourth Estate, whose job it is to report fairly and fearlessly on issues of national import, and to call a spade a spade even when likely to face attack.
One simmering issue for which we have attracted criticism from the Prime Minister has been with respect to our analysis of the public imbroglio involving himself, the Attorney General, Chief Justice and the DPP, who has warned of an impending collapse of the judicial system amid reported staff shortages and inadequate conditions at his office.
While we hold no brief for the current holder of that office, and indeed are prepared to hold his performance up to public scrutiny as needed, it has been troubling to see that office embroiled in a seemingly unending and deepening political conflict involving members of the current Executive.
It is against that backdrop that we are most heartened to hear the Prime Minister say his recent public utterances about that office were not intended as any attack on the Office, or the current office holder.
However, for anyone to seek to put blame on this newspaper for the widely held view of discontent and disenchantment between the DPP’s Office and three top officials is, as the Prime Minister himself likes to suggest, “playing farse with foolishness.”
The fact of the matter is that of late, the Office of the DPP has been brought into significant disrepute, and chief among the critics have been three of our most prominent public officials.
The assault on the office started with the Prime Minister complaining openly that Government was paying millions for an office space the DPP’s Office was still not using, although security adjustments were made to it and Government was bound to a three-year contract for the space.
It was not very long after that the Attorney General launched a further offensive, saying the call by the DPP for more staff was “an unsatisfactory explanation for under-performance of the DPP.”
To add insult to injury, Chief Justice Ivor Archie also released a six-page statement accusing Mr Gaspard, among other things, of failing to suggest names and appraisals for prosecutors to be promoted and to indicate the need to fill vacancies in his department.
The Chief Justice also dismissed DPP Gaspard’s view that at least 150 attorneys were required to supervise the criminal courts, saying the suggestion was not viable.
We are also not sure whether either AG Reginald Armour or CJ Archie would have been emboldened to make such public responses to the DPP’s concerns, rather than private discussions befitting of their offices, had the Prime Minister not also launched such a public reprimand of the DPP Office himself.
Based on the above, we wish to affirm for our Prime Minister’s benefit that if anyone is in need of a public apology over this most unfortunate and public episode, we think it would be the DPP.