(Jamaica Gleaner) The Jamaican Bar Association is questioning the validity of the amendments to the Constitution, which will increase the retirement age of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Auditor General (AuG) to 65 years and allow for the extension of their contract to 70 years.
In a release yesterday, the association was critical of; the handling of the amendments, especially as they relate to the current DPP Paula Llewellyn.
It is also requesting the government dispel the notion that the amendments were to extend the time for Llewellyn to continue in office and argued that the government’s failure to accede risks widespread public distrust of the offices of the DPP and AG.
It has urged the Government not to apply the amendment to the current DPP.
The Bar Association also raised concerns about the validity of the amendments and questioned whether the manner and procedure in the way they were made contravene the constitution.
According to the release, the association is perturbed, particularly about the constitutional provisions dedicated to how the retirement age of the DPP may be extended, especially since issues relating to the provisions could go before the court.
“JBA is aware from media reports that the issues arising from the passage of the Bill may well be considered by the courts, given a possible constitutional challenge. JBA is therefore not only cautious in its pronouncements at this stage but is also carefully assessing all the legal implications of these amendments and considering in detail all relevant issues arising from this still unfolding development,” the release, signed by Bar Association president John Bassie, stated.
The association called aspects of the changes disputable and highly undesirable.
“There was no opportunity in the Lower House, from all reports, for any informed or prepared debate on the Bill. There is no express provision for consultation concerning an amendment of the subsection to increase the age of retirement; indeed, all required for an amendment of the provision is the majority votes of members present in each House. The not unreasonable question arises as to whether the amendment route was invoked to circumvent the consultative procedure,” the release said.
It stated that, under the constitution, multiple extensions are not permissible, and the amendment is peculiar to Llewellyn, whose tenure was extended in 2020.
“This is a compelling basis for the increase to be regarded as effectively granting a further extension not provided for by the Constitution,” the release continued.
According to the release, how the change was done is reflective of the scant regard for the “weighty matters” of the amendments, and this facilitates a guaranteed planned outcome, with only a Parliamentary majority needed.
