March 12, 2021 | Hopeton O’Connor-Dennie |
It is an open secret that the current DPP is on an extended contract. She reached retirement age last year, 2020. She sought and obtained an extension. This was not before a public spat between the Then Opposition Leader Dr. The Hon. Peter David Phillips and PM Andrew Michael Holness. There was a very public to and from between both heavy weights as to whether a consultation did occur as is required or not. This requirement is not Legally binding, but a cherished tradition. The jury is still out as to who is telling the truth.
Who is Paula Llewellyn, QC ?
The current Director Of Public Prosecution (DPP) is the first female to be so appointed to this constitutional position. She has been occupying this position for then (10) years. A feature of her incumbency has been her accessibility to the media. She is quite media savvy. Some may argue that she is too “chatty chatty.” Her public spat with INDECOM has not won her many friends. Others say she is too “nuff”.
High Profile Cases
The DPP has lost some big cases. The Kern Spencer fraud case has been one such high profile case that many felt was the DPP’s to lose.
It was rumoured she wanted 5 years more. She actually got 3. Well that is now a settled matter. What seems to be in doubt, is who will be replacing her. Is there an under study?
Paula Llewellyn’s likely successor is a male, it was rumoured. The problem is he was in hot waters for allegedly “Peeling and Revealing”. Anyone is entitled to pleasuring themselves in private, but to reveal the same publicly is in my view a no no. He was rebuked and the DPP herself issued a sort of public statement of rebuke. In light of that bizarre incident, the 64 million dollar question is does that render him a fit and proper person to hold the high constitutional office of DPP?
This office calls for the occupant to be of sound judgment. As they often say “Not only Caesar, but his wife must be above reproach”. Is the “peeler” considered as someone above reproach? Should his sexual orientation, whatever that may be a consideration when the vetting of a likely candidate is put under the microscope? Should this be a precursor to the holding of this high office? Not only Caesar but Caesar’s’ wife must be above reproach.
His poor judgment in revealing his private doings cannot be ignored. If he is so indiscreet, does that not render him a security risk? Can we take such a gamble with this potential candidate for such a sensitive job?
On the other hand, should we ignore his indiscretions if he is eminently qualified for the job? It is quite a lot to drill down into.
The need for public confidence in the holder of this crucial job cannot be sidestepped. Rulings from the holder of this office can be impacting. It can make or break careers.
This is a serious office. The holder of this office almost has a job for life or until retirement age has been
reached. Also the holder reports to Parliament annually. In short it is similar to being tenured. To dismiss the DPP is not an easy process. This office is insulated by law from political interference. This is rightly so. When the DPP makes a ruling no one can reverse that decision.. Only the court can strike down this ruling. A ruling starts a court case which is prosecuted in court.
We will have more to say on this matter later.
Hopeton O’Connor-Dennie is a veteran journalist with international exposure.